I never used any monitor bigger than 21, isn't 24 too big to use with a pc? It kind of seems like I'd need to tear my eyes open. Does this make any sense? lol
I never used any monitor bigger than 21, isn't 24 too big to use with a pc? It kind of seems like I'd need to tear my eyes open. Does this make any sense? lol
Sit farther away and/or move the monitor farther away. Kinda weird but hey 24 inch screens are higher res.
Matte, you can pay a bit more for a similar one that's glossy but personally I hate glossy. Getting rid of reflections was one of the best things about moving past CRTs.
Enjoy your grainy picture and sparkly rainbow specks when viewing white stuff :P
I never used any monitor bigger than 21, isn't 24 too big to use with a pc? It kind of seems like I'd need to tear my eyes open. Does this make any sense? lol
It's fine at the distance I sit, which is the distance I sat from my old 15". I guess you'll have to try one to be sure. Actually using one, that is. They seem huge just to look at, less so when you're using one.
I never used any monitor bigger than 21, isn't 24 too big to use with a pc? It kind of seems like I'd need to tear my eyes open. Does this make any sense? lol
It's fine at the distance I sit, which is the distance I sat from my old 15". I guess you'll have to try one to be sure. Actually using one, that is. They seem huge just to look at, less so when you're using one.
I find it's no longer necessary to have everything maximized. You use the screen more effectively.
I'll give it a try I'll see if I can buy a new monitor this summer. I have a SyncMaster 940BW and it's cool but I think my dad wants it cause he has an old as shit 15" CRT, so I'm on the hunt now.
But, the reviews on Newegg says that it suffers from color banding on gradients, and image persistence (on some faulty models it seems).
An S-IPS panel can have color banding? This thing retailed new for around 700 dollars when it first came out, so what gives? I heard that some Dell 2007WFP monitors had banding problems, too.
I bought this monitor a year or so back, and have been spoiled by the combination of quality, inputs, and good warranty. I think the banding problems were attributed to the fact that (from what I can remember) there was some kind of overdrive function this monitor used to drive down response times, but it's been a while since I looked.
I'm still waiting for a solid s-ips 24"+ panel to come out, but it looks like NEC left the multimedia monitor market at this point
Might as well post this in here so I don't really need to make a new thread.
Okay, so I'm actually thinking of getting a second monitor so I can have my computer open while I play games or watch TV. As much as I'd like to just buy what's suggested, I kind of want to know what I should be looking for (statistics wise).
For example, contrast ratios...what's good (is dynamic a must and what the hell does it mean?)? What's bad? Is having a 2ms response time too much or a necessity? If I plan to hook up my PS3 to one of these monitors I would want an HDMI input right (or is this not necessary)? Aspect ratios; what should I be looking for? Pixel pitch?
Also, should I just get a LCD monitor with a TV tuner in it, or buy a TV tuner separately?
But, the reviews on Newegg says that it suffers from color banding on gradients, and image persistence (on some faulty models it seems).
An S-IPS panel can have color banding? This thing retailed new for around 700 dollars when it first came out, so what gives? I heard that some Dell 2007WFP monitors had banding problems, too.
I bought this monitor a year or so back, and have been spoiled by the combination of quality, inputs, and good warranty. I think the banding problems were attributed to the fact that (from what I can remember) there was some kind of overdrive function this monitor used to drive down response times, but it's been a while since I looked.
I'm still waiting for a solid s-ips 24"+ panel to come out, but it looks like NEC left the multimedia monitor market at this point
Might as well post this in here so I don't really need to make a new thread.
Okay, so I'm actually thinking of getting a second monitor so I can have my computer open while I play games or watch TV. As much as I'd like to just buy what's suggested, I kind of want to know what I should be looking for (statistics wise).
For example, contrast ratios...what's good (is dynamic a must and what the hell does it mean?)? What's bad? Is having a 2ms response time too much or a necessity? If I plan to hook up my PS3 to one of these monitors I would want an HDMI input right (or is this not necessary)? Aspect ratios; what should I be looking for? Pixel pitch?
Also, should I just get a LCD monitor with a TV tuner in it, or buy a TV tuner separately?
Dynamic contrast sucks, I think. It changes the contrast or something depending on what's on the screen... but it's just some artificial thing and lalalala I dunno I don't pay attention to it. You can always turn it off if a monitor has it, I believe.
2ms... if it's 2ms, there is the chance that it uses RTC aka Overdrive. It's this thing that sends more voltage to the pixels or something in order to get it to change faster, but as a side effect the pixel may overshoot sometimes and cause some weird artifacts or visual anomalies when something on the screen changes or there's a moving image. Example is a negative/inverted trail behind moving objects, so basically you have a dark shadow behind a character who is running across the screen, and you're even playing Symphony of the Night.
Basically, it's bad. Also, it could increase input lag, which means for example if you move your mouse, your monitor will take a bit of time to actually display your mouse moving. I think monitors nowadays let you turn off RTC/Overdrive if you want.
To hook a PS3 to a monitor, the monitor needs an HDMI port or a DVI-D port. The DVI-D port should support HDCP (this stupid thing that is supposed to prevent copying of high-definition videos and movies but really it just gets people to go out and buy new video cards and new monitors). If you use DVI-D, you need to get an HDMI to DVI-D adapter or an HDMI to DVI-D cable, as PS3 only has an HDMI-out port. Don't worry, though, HDMI and DVI-D are basically the same exact thing.
With HDMI, the sound is transferred to your monitor as well, so I guess it can play audio if it has speakers. If you wanna use external speakers, or if you're using DVI-D, you can just set the PS3 to output audio via those red and white plugs on your PS3's A/V cable.
Aspect ratios: Most widescreen LCD monitors are 16:10. PS3 outputs at 16:9. You should get a monitor that has scaling options in the menu (like Aspect or something) so that the 16:9 image will not be stretched out, but instead will have black bars on the top and bottom. Avoid the HP w2007 and HP w2207 monitors, since although they have a "Fill to Aspect Ratio" option, it does not work for Xbox 360 or PS3.
I'm looking into the one you just linked (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16824185007).
That thing is pretty nice and since I can just use the DVI-D for my PS3 it's an excellent choice (just to be sure DVI=DVI-D? so this monitor will work with my PS3 correct?)
-EDIT-
Started reading into that thread and PS3 seems to run like a champ with this monitor. Damn, this monitor is almost too good to be true. The only thing I'm worried about is the dead pixels people seem to be getting.
Should I have any worries about the capability of my graphics card to handle a 22" monitor and a 26" monitor if it has two DVI outputs?
Also, polarization, what is it and is it that important?
Yeah, the G2400 is supposed to have pretty much the best out of the box calibration of any LCD currently on the market. You could get it set better if you had something like a spyder 3 sitting around, but barring that its best to leave it as is.
So I just went and bought the Benq FP241VW - these were the best 622 bucks (EUR) I spend. It can do 1:1 pixel output (for 16:9 pictures) and has nearly every video input imaginable. Thanks, PA forum - I would never considered this brand.
I'm looking into the one you just linked (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16824185007).
That thing is pretty nice and since I can just use the DVI-D for my PS3 it's an excellent choice (just to be sure DVI=DVI-D? so this monitor will work with my PS3 correct?)
-EDIT-
Started reading into that thread and PS3 seems to run like a champ with this monitor. Damn, this monitor is almost too good to be true. The only thing I'm worried about is the dead pixels people seem to be getting.
Should I have any worries about the capability of my graphics card to handle a 22" monitor and a 26" monitor if it has two DVI outputs?
Also, polarization, what is it and is it that important?
It should work with PS3. Yeah it should be DVI-D with HDCP. I just am not sure about the scaling options... it has a 1:1 pixel mapping option according to the reviews, but does it have an aspect mode where it fills it up as much as possible while keeping the proper aspect ratio? The online manual says it does, but I want to make sure it works properly. Also some guy told me that the manual is just copied over from a different monitor and so things might be different.
The polarizer is a type of screen that reduces/eliminates a white glow on the screen when it's viewed from an angle.
Leaning towards the Samsung, as I can get that at Best Buy for easier/cheaper returns if necessary. Primarily use will be general web surfing, gaming (PC and 360), and probably some photo editing. Maybe HD movies in the future.
I can't do a 24" because it won't fit where my desk is now.
So... Is there anything in the sub-200 range for us poor folk that will properly scale an image from the 360?
I haven't received my broken-but-cheap-with-warranty-seal-intact-360 yet, but I don't think it has HDMI out. So I'll need to buy one of those VGA cables, but I'm gonna dump the crappy-ass 19" Magnavox LCDTV I got for signing up for FIOS in favor of something that doesn't stretch 16:9 signals vertically to 16:10.
Size I don't really care about. 19" would be fine.
It's brighter (400cd vs 250), and appears to have a better response time and contrast ratio. However, it also sucks more juice (probably due to higher brightness), and is marginally larger/heavier.
Don't compare monitors by looking at the info on Newegg. A lot of times those specs are wrong, and even if they are correct almost all the manufacturers lie about their specs. Okay, I guess it's not lying...they use "creative" testing procedures to produce the most "accurate" results that will put their product in the best light.
Find some first hand accounts of the monitor you want to buy, hardforum is one of the best places. That's what you should go by for monitors, not professional reviews or specs.
It's brighter (400cd vs 250), and appears to have a better response time and contrast ratio. However, it also sucks more juice (probably due to higher brightness), and is marginally larger/heavier.
The acer probably isn't bad, but it's not as good as the BenQ. The contrast ratio listed is a load of crap, its a dynamic contrast ratio, which works by dimming the backlight in dark areas, the problem is there is a noticeable lag between the dark and dimming effect, so virtually everyone turns it off, most monitors actually ship with it disabled because its so useless and just for marketing. Onto the brightness, while the Acer does have more, no denying it, generally people keep monitors at 180 cd/m2 or less, anything brighter than that is usually uncomfortable for people. So while you'll have the option of more brightness on the Acer, there's a very good chance you'd never come close to using it. Now the important part, the BenQ has perfect 1:1 pixel mapping and scaling, the Acer does not, so it will crop the sides off of images sent from devices that aren't computers, so no hooking consoles or dvd/blu ray players up to it if you don't want the edges cropped off.
It's brighter (400cd vs 250), and appears to have a better response time and contrast ratio. However, it also sucks more juice (probably due to higher brightness), and is marginally larger/heavier.
The acer probably isn't bad, but it's not as good as the BenQ. The contrast ratio listed is a load of crap, its a dynamic contrast ratio, which works by dimming the backlight in dark areas, the problem is there is a noticeable lag between the dark and dimming effect, so virtually everyone turns it off, most monitors actually ship with it disabled because its so useless and just for marketing.
Yeah, I figured those odd acronyms were probably short for "awesome performance in 1% of situations". Further research shows that the GTG (gray to gray) response time measurement is often used is a similar fashion, but you can't really tell unless they specify which grays are twisting to which grays.
Now the important part, the BenQ has perfect 1:1 pixel mapping and scaling, the Acer does not, so it will crop the sides off of images sent from devices that aren't computers, so no hooking consoles or dvd/blu ray players up to it if you don't want the edges cropped off.
There's several (like 10) reviews that mention the PS3 works great on the monitor using the HD input, so maybe it just doesn't mention this feature? Also, the Acer is a glossy screen versus the BenQ's matte screen, but that's mostly a personal preference based on whatever lighting conditions you've got.
If you're right about the 1:1 pixel thing, then yeah, the BenQ's a slam dunk.
Edit: Consider the G2400WD instead of the the W; for $10 more you get dynamic contrast (if you want it) and the top review indicates that it doesn't have the problems with the top of the screen being darker than the bottom, which was probably the number one complaint on the W.
Edit: Consider the G2400WD instead of the the W; for $10 more you get dynamic contrast (if you want it) and the top review indicates that it doesn't have the problems with the top of the screen being darker than the bottom, which was probably the number one complaint on the W.
I haven't noticed anysuch problem, for the record.
Edit: Consider the G2400WD instead of the the W; for $10 more you get dynamic contrast (if you want it) and the top review indicates that it doesn't have the problems with the top of the screen being darker than the bottom, which was probably the number one complaint on the W.
I haven't noticed anysuch problem, for the record.
I had originally figured it was due to people not having the screen tilted at them properly, but there were quite a few people whining about it in the reviews.
So... Is there anything in the sub-200 range for us poor folk that will properly scale an image from the 360?
I haven't received my broken-but-cheap-with-warranty-seal-intact-360 yet, but I don't think it has HDMI out. So I'll need to buy one of those VGA cables, but I'm gonna dump the crappy-ass 19" Magnavox LCDTV I got for signing up for FIOS in favor of something that doesn't stretch 16:9 signals vertically to 16:10.
Size I don't really care about. 19" would be fine.
I think the Dell SP2008WFP (So the 20 inch version... not the 22 inch) supports all the right scaling. The online manual says it supports 1:1, 4:3, and 16:9 modes, among some other things. Read the reviews on the Dell product page first, though.... this 20 inch version should be free from blurry text problems of the 22 inch one, I think. Just keep in mind that maybe the complaints on the 20 inch version (top part of screen darker than bottom part) seems to be inherent with all TN-based panels. But hey it's a 250 dollar ish LCD screen.
So... Is there anything in the sub-200 range for us poor folk that will properly scale an image from the 360?
I haven't received my broken-but-cheap-with-warranty-seal-intact-360 yet, but I don't think it has HDMI out. So I'll need to buy one of those VGA cables, but I'm gonna dump the crappy-ass 19" Magnavox LCDTV I got for signing up for FIOS in favor of something that doesn't stretch 16:9 signals vertically to 16:10.
Size I don't really care about. 19" would be fine.
I think the Dell SP2008WFP (So the 20 inch version... not the 22 inch) supports all the right scaling. The online manual says it supports 1:1, 4:3, and 16:9 modes, among some other things. Read the reviews on the Dell product page first, though.... this 20 inch version should be free from blurry text problems of the 22 inch one, I think. Just keep in mind that maybe the complaints on the 20 inch version (top part of screen darker than bottom part) seems to be inherent with all TN-based panels. But hey it's a 250 dollar ish LCD screen.
Posts
Pokémon HGSS: 1205 1613 4041
Enjoy your grainy picture and sparkly rainbow specks when viewing white stuff :P
It's fine at the distance I sit, which is the distance I sat from my old 15". I guess you'll have to try one to be sure. Actually using one, that is. They seem huge just to look at, less so when you're using one.
I find it's no longer necessary to have everything maximized. You use the screen more effectively.
Outside of gaming and specific full screen applications, it's like having a bigger desk.
Pokémon HGSS: 1205 1613 4041
I bought this monitor a year or so back, and have been spoiled by the combination of quality, inputs, and good warranty. I think the banding problems were attributed to the fact that (from what I can remember) there was some kind of overdrive function this monitor used to drive down response times, but it's been a while since I looked.
I'm still waiting for a solid s-ips 24"+ panel to come out, but it looks like NEC left the multimedia monitor market at this point
PSN: LucidStar_BC
Okay, so I'm actually thinking of getting a second monitor so I can have my computer open while I play games or watch TV. As much as I'd like to just buy what's suggested, I kind of want to know what I should be looking for (statistics wise).
For example, contrast ratios...what's good (is dynamic a must and what the hell does it mean?)? What's bad? Is having a 2ms response time too much or a necessity? If I plan to hook up my PS3 to one of these monitors I would want an HDMI input right (or is this not necessary)? Aspect ratios; what should I be looking for? Pixel pitch?
Also, should I just get a LCD monitor with a TV tuner in it, or buy a TV tuner separately?
Hardforum has a thread on it http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1268063
It's sold out everywhere right now.
Man, I wonder if I should get one. 26 inches seems way too big for my purposes, though. Damnit, where the hell are the 20 inch/22 inch S-IPS monitors?!!? 2007WFP and the NEC one have RTC/Overdrive that you can't disable... urgghhhh
Dynamic contrast sucks, I think. It changes the contrast or something depending on what's on the screen... but it's just some artificial thing and lalalala I dunno I don't pay attention to it. You can always turn it off if a monitor has it, I believe.
2ms... if it's 2ms, there is the chance that it uses RTC aka Overdrive. It's this thing that sends more voltage to the pixels or something in order to get it to change faster, but as a side effect the pixel may overshoot sometimes and cause some weird artifacts or visual anomalies when something on the screen changes or there's a moving image. Example is a negative/inverted trail behind moving objects, so basically you have a dark shadow behind a character who is running across the screen, and you're even playing Symphony of the Night.
Basically, it's bad. Also, it could increase input lag, which means for example if you move your mouse, your monitor will take a bit of time to actually display your mouse moving. I think monitors nowadays let you turn off RTC/Overdrive if you want.
To hook a PS3 to a monitor, the monitor needs an HDMI port or a DVI-D port. The DVI-D port should support HDCP (this stupid thing that is supposed to prevent copying of high-definition videos and movies but really it just gets people to go out and buy new video cards and new monitors). If you use DVI-D, you need to get an HDMI to DVI-D adapter or an HDMI to DVI-D cable, as PS3 only has an HDMI-out port. Don't worry, though, HDMI and DVI-D are basically the same exact thing.
With HDMI, the sound is transferred to your monitor as well, so I guess it can play audio if it has speakers. If you wanna use external speakers, or if you're using DVI-D, you can just set the PS3 to output audio via those red and white plugs on your PS3's A/V cable.
Aspect ratios: Most widescreen LCD monitors are 16:10. PS3 outputs at 16:9. You should get a monitor that has scaling options in the menu (like Aspect or something) so that the 16:9 image will not be stretched out, but instead will have black bars on the top and bottom. Avoid the HP w2007 and HP w2207 monitors, since although they have a "Fill to Aspect Ratio" option, it does not work for Xbox 360 or PS3.
I'm looking into the one you just linked (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16824185007).
That thing is pretty nice and since I can just use the DVI-D for my PS3 it's an excellent choice (just to be sure DVI=DVI-D? so this monitor will work with my PS3 correct?)
-EDIT-
Started reading into that thread and PS3 seems to run like a champ with this monitor. Damn, this monitor is almost too good to be true. The only thing I'm worried about is the dead pixels people seem to be getting.
Should I have any worries about the capability of my graphics card to handle a 22" monitor and a 26" monitor if it has two DVI outputs?
Also, polarization, what is it and is it that important?
The polarizer is a type of screen that reduces/eliminates a white glow on the screen when it's viewed from an angle.
I want some real (internet) people opinions on what they use. I want to finally go widescreen and 22 seems to be the point at which I am looking.
I KISS YOU!
24" is almost too wide.
Ahhh, if only my desk were about a foot deeper. :P
samsung 2253BW
Asus VW222U
Leaning towards the Samsung, as I can get that at Best Buy for easier/cheaper returns if necessary. Primarily use will be general web surfing, gaming (PC and 360), and probably some photo editing. Maybe HD movies in the future.
I can't do a 24" because it won't fit where my desk is now.
Thoughts/opinions?
I haven't received my broken-but-cheap-with-warranty-seal-intact-360 yet, but I don't think it has HDMI out. So I'll need to buy one of those VGA cables, but I'm gonna dump the crappy-ass 19" Magnavox LCDTV I got for signing up for FIOS in favor of something that doesn't stretch 16:9 signals vertically to 16:10.
Size I don't really care about. 19" would be fine.
I really doubt it. 1:1 or even proper scaling isn't a baseline feature.
It's brighter (400cd vs 250), and appears to have a better response time and contrast ratio. However, it also sucks more juice (probably due to higher brightness), and is marginally larger/heavier.
Find some first hand accounts of the monitor you want to buy, hardforum is one of the best places. That's what you should go by for monitors, not professional reviews or specs.
The acer probably isn't bad, but it's not as good as the BenQ. The contrast ratio listed is a load of crap, its a dynamic contrast ratio, which works by dimming the backlight in dark areas, the problem is there is a noticeable lag between the dark and dimming effect, so virtually everyone turns it off, most monitors actually ship with it disabled because its so useless and just for marketing. Onto the brightness, while the Acer does have more, no denying it, generally people keep monitors at 180 cd/m2 or less, anything brighter than that is usually uncomfortable for people. So while you'll have the option of more brightness on the Acer, there's a very good chance you'd never come close to using it. Now the important part, the BenQ has perfect 1:1 pixel mapping and scaling, the Acer does not, so it will crop the sides off of images sent from devices that aren't computers, so no hooking consoles or dvd/blu ray players up to it if you don't want the edges cropped off.
Yeah, I figured those odd acronyms were probably short for "awesome performance in 1% of situations". Further research shows that the GTG (gray to gray) response time measurement is often used is a similar fashion, but you can't really tell unless they specify which grays are twisting to which grays.
There's several (like 10) reviews that mention the PS3 works great on the monitor using the HD input, so maybe it just doesn't mention this feature? Also, the Acer is a glossy screen versus the BenQ's matte screen, but that's mostly a personal preference based on whatever lighting conditions you've got.
If you're right about the 1:1 pixel thing, then yeah, the BenQ's a slam dunk.
Edit: Consider the G2400WD instead of the the W; for $10 more you get dynamic contrast (if you want it) and the top review indicates that it doesn't have the problems with the top of the screen being darker than the bottom, which was probably the number one complaint on the W.
I had originally figured it was due to people not having the screen tilted at them properly, but there were quite a few people whining about it in the reviews.
Hey. Thanks for the info!
I'd like to be able to use it for PC/360/PS3/HiDef etc. (widescreen/1080p support).
In the 24 - 42 inch range, money aside, what might be the best solution given the wide variety of inputs?