Monitor pre-purchase questions

[nearmiss]

Currently, I have a 24" Acer X241W monitor 1920x1200 5ms.

Monitor prices have dropped now to where I can get a 23.6" monitor 1920x1080 5ms for $150 USD.

It appears that computer monitors are taking the HDTV route of using the 1920x1080 resolution as standard.

My Video card 8800 GTX 512MB nVidia supports 2 DVI so it shouldn't be a problem with VC.

Yet, I'm thinking maybe I should try to find another 1920x1200 monitor. They are priced around $249-300USD.

Maybe I'll be satisfied with using two resolution sizes, maybe not.

Regardless, I thought I'd post to read some thoughts by others.

[T}{OR]

I would go with 2 ms.

[Igo kyu]

I think the 1080p fad will pass. After all it's fewer pixels than 1900x1200.

I'm using 1600x1200, and I want a significant increase in resolution before I think of upgrading (supposing nothing breaks <touches wood>).

1080p is good for watching films, but it's less than ideal for looking at text.

I think this guy is correct on this subject:

http://10rem.net/blog/2010/04/22/ran...ls-and-dpi-now

[nearmiss]

That's what I was looking for.

I agree pixels, pixels and more pixels. That is why I originally bought 1920x1200, which was all I could afford at the time. I thought my monitor was 2 ms, but I read specs yesterday and it is 5 ms.

I really need a second monitor as I'm doing a very tedious development project at this time. Just can't keep max and min the open apps, very difficult when the data is not copy paste.

Then you know like everyone here I'm making plans for getting the most bang for my buck... with SOW release nearing.

[Blackdog_kt]

Everyone is mostly paying attention to resolution and response times when buying monitors (especially gamers), but there are other equally important aspects like viewing angles, color fidelity and panel type.

Most of all, the most important thing is to realize how these specs are measured. I was looking for an LCD unit to replace my 17" CRT Trinitron last year and spent 2 weeks browsing dedicated hardware forums and review sites before making the decision.

I ended up with a Dell 2209WA 22" that runs a 1680x1050 resoluion (it's 16:10, so you get two small black bars top and bottom when watching films).

I didn't buy a 1080p monitor because i wanted to make sure tham i'm not going to be forced into a graphics card upgrade with the release of SoW (smaller resolution is easier to push for the GPU and looks just fine on the 22"). I also didn't look for a less-than-5ms monitor.

Granted, it was a bit of a gamble but payed off in the end. My monitor might seem worse in specs than other panels that were around at the time and it was also more expensive, I knew it was an IPS panel and these are pricey, although it was the budget range of IPS panels. In any case the reason it was more expensive became apparent upon delivery.

I get true 180 degrees of viewing angles with absolutely no distortion of color/brightness. I don't get blurring/ghosting when playing games even though it has a 5ms g2g response time and the colors are superb. It's the closest thing available to CRT image quality (yes, CRTs have better image quality, they are just too bulky to scale well for more than 19" and widescreen aspects, that's why the industry moved to LCDs).

So, why is that?

First of all, don't be fooled by the response time if there's no further definition of it. There are two response times, one is white to black and the other is gray to gray (g2g). The backlight of the monitor projects light and the crystals rotate under the application of voltage, letting the light through, shutting it off or resting in a partial, in-between position and that's how the different colors are displayed on each pixel.
If memory serves me right due to the way the crystals on the LCD work under the application of voltage, it's actually faster to go from black to white (from the crystal shutting off all light to the crystal letting all of it through and be displayed on the screen) than it is to go between two intermediate positions (g2g). So, a 5ms g2g response time is actually more valuable as a criterion of performance than a 2ms black to white response time.

Next, unless you are buying a monitor with a panel type whose performance you are familiar with, don't buy the viewing angles specs. It's not that the manufacturers are lying, it's just the way viewing angles are defined and measured. So, according to industry standards, a viewable angle is one where the viewer perceives at leats 10% of the monitor's total contrast.

In other words, your monitor could lose as much as 90% of its contrast when viewed from a certain angle and yet this viewpoint is counted as being withing specs. Kind of makes it sound like the big deal that it actually is, don't you think?

So, you could be leaning side to side with your TrackIR to spot that bandit and find out that you get distorted colours depending on your viewpoint, even though the specs say "viewing angles: 170 deg horizontal, 160 deg vertical". Not to mention lifting your head up to look over the nose during landing, with the horrible shift in brightness between the top and bottom of the screen in TN panel type.
You weren't lied to by the manufacturer, you were fooled by the way specs are defined.

Finally, unless you plan on getting the nVidia 3D gadget, there's no reason to go for a 120HZ monitor. As of a few months ago, the only panels capable of such refresh rates where the TN panels.

A brief summary of panel types most commonly used:
TN (twisted nematic): Usually the cheapest. Fastest response times, can go up to 120HZ, worst loss of image quality with a shift in viewpoint. I don't know if this has been fixed, but as far as i know TN panels are also unable to natively display full 32-bit colour. The way most monitors of this type manage to do it is by rapidly switching pixels between two colour values, creating the illusion of the needed third colour in the eyes of the user.

VA (vertical alignment): Mostly used by image editing professionals. Speed is not much of an issue for that kind of work, they obviously care about superior image quality though.
I haven't done too much research into them, but the main thing is that the crystals are aligned a different way. They come with their own set of advantages and drawbacks.

IPS (in-plane switching): Usually expensive panels but after last year's introduction of e-IPS by LG there are affordable models. The main drawbacks are slightly slower response times and inaccurate portrayal of the black colour in low end models. In fact, black is never completely black, but very dark gray and depending on the model, it might seem to give off somewhat of a "glow". In high end models, this is corrected by using a polarizing filter.
Advantages are that despite their slower response times they are still adequate for gaming (even action/shooters) and they have the best combination of viewing angles and color quality. Also, there's a new upcoming variation that will reach 120Hz refresh rates, so the last advantage of the TN panel will be negated as well.
If you have ever seen one of the recent series of iMacs and said "wow, look at that image quality", it's because they use IPS panels.

Truth is, i could never use a TN panel after experiencing IPS. Your mileage may vary, but for me resolutions and refresh rates take a backseat to comfort of viewing and colour quality.

I can spend hours in front of the screen and not feel tired at all. Ok, you need to do some calibration first time you use it, but it can be done well enough with online tools instead of buying calibration hardware kits. For example, the Dell i have is too bright, so i had to turn down brightness a lot before calibrating it.

Also, having a trackIR means i play with Vsync on, which limits your FPS to your monitor's refresh rate. LCD monitors work differently that CRT ones, so you don't need very high refresh rates to prevent flickering and tired eyes. In that sense, 60 limited FPS is more than enough so 60Hz is also fine.

My advice would be to seek out some promotional offers from Dell (there are a lot of those in the US and Europe, you can browse their website and maybe even get a salesperson's phone number to call) and check out their IPS range. They come with a 3-year on site warrantee for zero defective pixels. That means pixels with any kind of defect, as opposed to other warrantee policies, where a stuck pixel is defined as "a pixel which is stuck in either black or white colour" (tough luck if it gets stuck on red).

I know for a fact they have 24" models, i'm just not sure if they have the resolution you seek and the e-IPS economy panels, or they use the more expensive ones. I might sound like a salesman here, but the truth is i was so pleased with the the way this monitor performs and the terrific warrantee/replacement policy that it's a shame not to recommend it to others.

[nearmiss]

Blackdog

Very good information. I've not had very good luck with Dell. In fact, I have an XPS laptop I'm getting ready to send off next week to Dell... Dead as a doorknob.

I'm not saying I wouldn't buy from them again. I've got a Gateway laptop that has a fried Powersupply and it's depot maintenance for $450 no other choice.

In all fairness... My current monitor is Acer X241W. I had to return it to Acer service twice, before they got it right. It was a world class nuisance and I had to pay freight each way. They did fix the monitor eventually.

I'll go back through your posting and try to pick some important points that will enable a good research for choices. I really like the things you said, makes good sense.

The IPS is you prime consideration appears to be your primary consideration, which is worth looking into.

Having the higher resolutions 1920 x 1200 is great, especially after I got a video card that could push through the graphics fast enough to the monitor.

I did see Frys has a VW266H 25-1/2 inch monitor 1920x1200 2 ms for $320 USD.

----------------------------

Here is a IPS Panel monitor - let me know what you think this one is in stock.

Locally, I've not had any luck finding anyone else that has one in stock.
http://www.frys.com/product/6237270?...H:MAIN_RSLT_PG

[WTE_Galway]

Actually the 24" IPS Dell has some serious issues with many monitors showing a green/pink tint when working with a white background. As the main reason to go IPS is desktop publishing that is a serious problem and Dell are being very difficult about it.

http://en.community.dell.com/support.../19648044.aspx


On the other hand the 27" Dell 2560 x 1440 IPS screen is by all accounts stunning.

[proton45]

I was in "Be$t Buy" the other day and I sat looking at a "Sony Bravia"...its one of those "LED-LCD" tv's that they have been advertising. All I could think was "Wow!!!"...that thing looks amazing...I mean really amazing. The black's where pure, I saw no halo around fire or bright lights. All the movement was sharp and clear (I could see no ghosting). And the one thing (the other 1 thing, lol) that I kept thinking was, "If only I could hook this thing up to my computer...then I could REALLY enjoy gaming (lol)".

[jg27_mc]

Originally Posted by proton45

I was in "Be$t Buy" the other day and I sat looking at a "Sony Bravia"...its one of those "LED-LCD" tv's that they have been advertising. All I could think was "Wow!!!"...that thing looks amazing...I mean really amazing. The black's where pure, I saw no halo around fire or bright lights. All the movement was sharp and clear (I could see no ghosting). And the one thing (the other 1 thing, lol) that I kept thinking was, "If only I could hook this thing up to my computer...then I could REALLY enjoy gaming (lol)".

Howdy,

Do you remember the exact model for that Sony Bravia?

I'm currently using an HP 2509m - 25" (Full HD). I’m using IL-2, FC 2.0 @ 1920x1080 and I love it.

I also own a Samsung LCD TV Monitor (Samsung SyncMaster T260HD) that can run @ 1600x1200 but my eyes don´t see any major improvements comparing to the full HD standard. And we really loose performance (FPS decrease) comparing to the full hd. (I own I7 @ 4.0 MHZ; 6Gibs of RAM @ 1904 MHZ and ATI HD5870 1GB @ default clocks)

I’m currently thinking switching to:

Samsung UE32C6530 @ 663,90 € http://www.samsung.com/uk/consumer/t...ype=prd_detail

or

LG 32LE5300 @ 579,00 € http://www.lg.com/uk/tv-audio-video/...v-32LE5300.jsp

But I’m having troubles finding good reviews to both of the models above.

If Sony has a good siming equipment in the same range (specs and price) I’ll probably go for it.

Cheers

[Robert]

Originally Posted by WTE_Galway

On the other hand the 27" Dell 2560 x 1440 IPS screen is by all accounts stunning.

For $1100.00 it better be. TBH I've been looking at monitors for a while too. I do a lot of video editing and recently upgraded to Avid Media Composer and I find my 19" CRT to not have enough real estate for all the bins, time-lines, preview and record monitor I need open at one time. So I curiously jumped up from the Dell IPS 24" to the 27" version. GULP. That's steep. No doubt it's worth it for the quality and superior performance, but is it something of value to me - at THAT price? IDK.

I do know I'm having a hard time working in my teeny tiny itsy bitsy 19"

Good bit of info blackdog. Thanks for the post.