Concerning Pixels (LCD Moniter Advice?)

Esteban G

Long time forum lurker but first time poster. All introductions aside, I need a new computer monitor before I move into my new apartment in 2 weeks.

At the moment I have a (gracefully aging) NEC Multisync LCD 1760v from a few years ago. Needless to say I want to step up to widescreen no larger than 22" with DVI-D hookups.

The monitor will be primarily used for Gaming and non professional Graphic arts so a decent color spectrum and contrast ratio is key. 2 DVI-D inputs with a source select button would be nice so I could switch between my PC and Macbook but thats just a convenience...

So far I've been looking into:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001096

Just looking for some input or for someone to point me in the right direction.

Thanks

Dratatoo

Dell's offerings are pretty decent if you go widescreen, over 20'' and don't buy the bottom the line.

Personally I use the Samsung SyncMaster 215TW which isn't produced anymore (it might be that it cannibalizated the TV product line). You can find this model pretty cheap nowadays - for around 400 Euro. It can be abused as audio switch if you decide to connect a device while using YUV (component), or composite (unfortunately the vga and DVI-D inputs share the same sound input which is a bummer). Picture quality very good for this price range. It even has a picture in picture function and supports HDMI encryption.

Avoid the Apple cinema display. The internal tech is about 3 years old by now, they have less features compared to other brands and are overpriced. (Hopefully they have a longer live span - at least the graphite/plastic cinema display's picture quality didn't decrease that much during their lifespan)

Eizo screens are the creme de la creme in the consumer range (concerning color representation, brightness, contrast). But they are also the most expensive ones.


226BW:

Remember, most manufactorers often use panels from other companies (I am looking at you Samsung and the 226BW crap you shoved on the market). The 226BW is a very good model if you are getting a S-Panel (Samsung Panel). But there are lots of stinkers which use the panels from a taiwan "no name company". I got one of those models. They are still "in-spec" concerning various internet sources. But you have to correct the colors manually in order to avoid a very visible blue dominance. IMO a TFT should have a ideal picture "out of the box". Ok, it is still a decent monitor for dual screen setup, bt I wouldn't do any "design work" on it.

edit: getting the Samsung 226BW with a S-Panel is like playing russian roulete, only you'll most likely end with an "not so ideal" purchase. Previous Samsung screen had an on the back of the device which indicated that it has an Samsung panel. The 226BW is lacking this indication.

I can't stress it enough, read reviews before buying anything - or, if possible, play with the device in the store. The picture quality varies greatly between different product lines - even if they come from the same company.

Esteban G

Thanks for all that. The 226BW seems like a fairly decent display given the asking price. I've found a number of websites with color profiles for the (a) and (c) display types too.

Anyone have any other suggestions? I was checking into viewsonic too but ive never bought anything from them.

exoplasm

226BW:

Remember, most manufactorers often use panels from other companies (I am looking at you Samsung and the 226BW crap you shoved on the market).

edit: getting the Samsung 226BW with a S-Panel is like playing russian roulete, only you'll most likely end with an "not so ideal" purchase. Previous Samsung screen had an on the back of the device which indicated that it has an Samsung panel. The 226BW is lacking this indication.

I can't stress it enough, read reviews before buying anything - or, if possible, play with the device in the store. The picture quality varies greatly between different product lines - even if they come from the same company.

Actually Samsung makes the most LCD panels which are used by almost everyone, especially Dell.

Esteban G

so in a sense your just getting a samsung display in a dell case?

yet at the same time samsung branded lcds have off name company displays in a samsung housing...

urahonky

I have a Samsung SyncMaster 930P, it's not widescreen... but it's a phenomenal monitor.

It also includes a 3 year warranty (as all Samsung products do), so I'd look into buying a good Samsung monitor personally.

Raslin

Heh. I'm also looking at 22-inch widescreen's atm, so mind if I post a couple I've been trying to decide between? Maybe one will pique your interest

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824254020

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824112009


They're both the same price(Hanns G has a 10 dollar off code atm), not counting the mail in rebate, which I never get around to sending in. I do like that the Hanns G has the USB 2.0 hub and the Wii cable, but I don't see HDCP compliant on it, while the Sceptre does(My video card is HDCP compliant).

I'm pretty much new to the whole HD thing, so basically, which one do you guys think would be better for me? It will basically be used for gaming(360, wii, PC), and some 3d art.

Esteban G

Yeah I saw the Hanns-G when i was browsing the 22inch panels on newegg. While the usb hub and included hd cables are nice I'm not so sure how much I can trust the company. I'd look for some benchmark reviews from places like toms hardware first.

I originally thought of playing my 360/wii via a vga adapter but eventually I broke down and bought a small hdtv (limited space at the moment)

Glal

Esteban G wrote: »

so in a sense your just getting a samsung display in a dell case?

yet at the same time samsung branded lcds have off name company displays in a samsung housing...

Dell gets Samsung's top of the line displays. Samsung's displays are the "still good, but not Dell" category. Then it just goes down, down, down.

I have a Samsung 204b. Love the resolution and contrast, not overly fond of the image persistence and the visible colour difference between the top and bottom of the screen.

Raere

Do you NEED widescreen? If you play older games, good luck with support for it. Not all games today even have full support. The only advantage widescreen gives you is native res for HD content. If you

Rook

Raere wrote: »

Do you NEED widescreen? If you play older games, good luck with support for it. Not all games today even have full support. The only advantage widescreen gives you is native res for HD content. If you

You can just play the non-widescreen games in non-widescreen mode. And it's really, really hard to go back to playing 4:3 on some types of games, RTS in particular but MMOs etc usually benefit a lot from the extra space on screen.

Joshmvii

I have a Gateway 24" that I bought from Best buy, it's pretty sexual. I think you said no larger than 22, but my friend has the same one I have, but 22" and it's very nice. I'd go 24" if you can afford it to have 1920x1200 resolution, but good luck to you either way.

Glal

Rook wrote: »

Raere wrote: »

Do you NEED widescreen? If you play older games, good luck with support for it. Not all games today even have full support. The only advantage widescreen gives you is native res for HD content. If you

You can just play the non-widescreen games in non-widescreen mode. And it's really, really hard to go back to playing 4:3 on some types of games, RTS in particular but MMOs etc usually benefit a lot from the extra space on screen.

There are no guarantees about extra space, it's up to the programmers to decide whether they'll extend the sides or simply crop the top/bottom. Ideally, they would go for a median resulting in a different proportion but the same absolute display surface.

tl;dr: widescreen offering more screen real estate is mostly psychological.

Dratatoo

Esteban G wrote: »

Thanks for all that. The 226BW seems like a fairly decent display given the asking price. I've found a number of websites with color profiles for the (a) and (c) display types too.

Anyone have any other suggestions? I was checking into viewsonic too but ive never bought anything from them.

The best thing is to correct the colors manually via on screen menu. Usually the color profiles don't work cross platform and if you use a device which doesn't allow color correction (videogame consoles etc.) you are stuck with the sucky default.

I'll post the correct numbers for my 226BW with third party panel when I get back home.

Rook

Glal wrote: »

Rook wrote: »

Raere wrote: »

Do you NEED widescreen? If you play older games, good luck with support for it. Not all games today even have full support. The only advantage widescreen gives you is native res for HD content. If you

You can just play the non-widescreen games in non-widescreen mode. And it's really, really hard to go back to playing 4:3 on some types of games, RTS in particular but MMOs etc usually benefit a lot from the extra space on screen.

There are no guarantees about extra space, it's up to the programmers to decide whether they'll extend the sides or simply crop the top/bottom. Ideally, they would go for a median resulting in a different proportion but the same absolute display surface.

tl;dr: widescreen offering more screen real estate is mostly psychological.

I'm not entirely sure you need a tl:dr for a 1 sentence post. Especially when it comes to a silly conclusion. It offers more space because there is more space. Whether that's for seeing more of the battlefield or more places to shove maps and inventories etc..

Glal

The ironic thing being that you apparently didn't understand my point and actually needed that tl;dr.

apotheos

Glal wrote: »

Rook wrote: »

Raere wrote: »

Do you NEED widescreen? If you play older games, good luck with support for it. Not all games today even have full support. The only advantage widescreen gives you is native res for HD content. If you

You can just play the non-widescreen games in non-widescreen mode. And it's really, really hard to go back to playing 4:3 on some types of games, RTS in particular but MMOs etc usually benefit a lot from the extra space on screen.

There are no guarantees about extra space, it's up to the programmers to decide whether they'll extend the sides or simply crop the top/bottom. Ideally, they would go for a median resulting in a different proportion but the same absolute display surface.

tl;dr: widescreen offering more screen real estate is mostly psychological.

No, its physiological, in that the human eye can see wider easier than it can see taller. The reason widescreen is so nice is the rest of life runs in widescreen.


And if you've got some 4:3 content you pillarbox the shit and its win-win. You're thesis is pretty much insane.

Glal

Two things. One, I was talking screen real estate. All that matters is surface (or number of pixels), and that is completely separate from format. If you squish a rectangle down to widescreen you're not gaining more space, ergo why the argument that "widescreen == more" is stupid. It -can- be, but that's a programmers' decision, not Dell's.
Two, would you care to expand on the eye vision topic? We have a wider peripheral vision clarity angle, true, but that angle is 6 degrees, or ~5 words. Past those 5 words it doesn't really matter whether it's to the side or up/down, it's gonna be fucking blurry.

bugmenot

Just thought I'd pipe in here. (didn't want to sign up for a forum account)

You have to remember that if you buy a 22" widescreen, you're going to have to run at 1680x1050 to get the best visuals in your games. This is well over twice the amount of pixels of running at, say, 1024x768. You're most likely going to want to get a new video card as well.

SporkAndrew

Glal wrote: »

Two things. One, I was talking screen real estate. All that matters is surface (or number of pixels), and that is completely separate from format. If you squish a rectangle down to widescreen you're not gaining more space, ergo why the argument that "widescreen == more" is stupid. It -can- be, but that's a programmers' decision, not Dell's.

I really don't understand what you're saying here.

Running my 24" monitor in its native res (1920x1200) gets a heck of a lot more information than on my 19" at its native res (1280x1024)..

There is no "squishing down" as the widescreen monitor has more (albeit only slightly) vertical space..

Are you on the drugs?

Glal

That was an example to demonstrate why "widescreen == bigger" is a nonsensical claim. Please do be keeping up.

apotheos

Glal wrote: »

Two things. One, I was talking screen real estate. All that matters is surface (or number of pixels), and that is completely separate from format. If you squish a rectangle down to widescreen you're not gaining more space, ergo why the argument that "widescreen == more" is stupid. It -can- be, but that's a programmers' decision, not Dell's.
Two, would you care to expand on the eye vision topic? We have a wider peripheral vision clarity angle, true, but that angle is 6 degrees, or ~5 words. Past those 5 words it doesn't really matter whether it's to the side or up/down, it's gonna be fucking blurry.

If the only thing you needed to have on a monitor was what you could focus on we'd all have 9" displays.

I don't know why you've gone out of your way to explain that 4:3 content doesn't fill a 16:9 display as I'd take that as obvious.

Glal

You are the one who brought up peripheral vision as relevant to the discussion, I don't see why you're now acting smug that I pointed it out as irrelevant.

And I have no idea where you pulled that one from. 4:3 content can fit inside a 16:9 display and 16:9 content can fit within a 4:3 display, what matters when talking about size is surface. As I've been repeating over and over.

Rook

Glal wrote: »

Two things. One, I was talking screen real estate. All that matters is surface (or number of pixels), and that is completely separate from format. If you squish a rectangle down to widescreen you're not gaining more space, ergo why the argument that "widescreen == more" is stupid. It -can- be, but that's a programmers' decision, not Dell's.

You have come up with what must be one of the most fantastically retarded arguments in existence. Hey, the 8800 isn't faster than an Intel GMA300. Sure it -can- be faster, but that's a programmers' decision, not Dell's.

Glal

Look people, this isn't rocket science.

dmauro

An important thing to keep in mind when buying a monitor is who will let you send a monitor back if you're not satisfied. Dell will let you send a monitor back if you're not satisfied for any reason, whereas if you're buying off newegg, you're going to need at least 8 (I think) dead pixels.

edit: Gial is right btw. You could just as easily say "hey 4:3 screens allow you to view more vertically." But, the benefit to widescreen is that some games program for it and give you an increased fov. Also to note, given two screens of the same diagonal distance, the 16:10 screen will only have 93% of the area that a 4:3 screen will have.

edit 2: how did I just get bumped to the next page?!

apotheos

Oh. I see your point. Its a wierd little point, but its accurate.

My point is that its nicer to have width rather than height. Leveraging your point, if you're going to add more space you'll enjoy it more if its on horizontal plane.

Glal

Fair enough.

Esteban G

The way I see it more and more display producers are stepping into the widescreen market and phasing out their 4:3 variants. Regardless of the previous argument, a step up to a 22"-24" widescreen is going to be a HUGE difference from my 17ms response time 17" moniter...

As for the graphics card comment I think I'm good for now, I'm running an evga 7800 gt that does fine.

Raslin

I'm still running on my 15 inch monitor that I got many years ago. Going to a 22 will make me cry, I believe.

exoplasm

Esteban G wrote: »

As for the graphics card comment I think I'm good for now, I'm running an evga 7800 gt that does fine.

From what I understand it's about the memory on the video card itself. The more pixels you have, the more memory you need to store all the textures and such. I can't confirm this myself as I've gone from using a mediocre computer at 1024x768 for gaming to a nice rig that plays games at 1280x1024.

I am thinking of getting a 22-24" widescreen LCD monitor soon since I'm ready to jump on that bandwagon (and also my 19" LCD sucks), but I was told I might need a card with more memory. Right now I use a 8800GTS 320MB, which I would guess would be enough for most games, but newer games may require an investment of the 640MB or larger variants to play at 1920x1200.

Of course, this is all supposing you would play the games at native resolution (1920x1200 for 24" right?). If you don't play at native resolution you might notice some ugliness, but I've never had an LCD monitor before I got my 8800GTS so I don't know really.

Javen

Oddly enough, I was looking at the exact same monitor (Samsung 226) yesterday as well. Went out and bought it today. VERY excited.

Ashendark

Esteban G wrote: »

So far I've been looking into:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001096

Just looking for some input or for someone to point me in the right direction.

I bought the 21.6" version of that monitor about a month ago. It looks very nice and is very bright. I was surprised by how much larger it looks than my old 19" ws lcd. It does however look fairly dim if viewing it from an extreme angle up or down, but it still looks ok viewing it from the side angles. All and all it is a very nice monitor, and I would buy one again.

I don't know if the extra .4" is worth the extra $40 but then again, it's only fourty bucks.