New Monitor

    I don't know a lot either, apart from the basic.

    Go for good brands, afaik Samsung is the leading in the best cost/quality relation atm,

    Get a monitor with 50000:1 contrast ratio. (or at the very least 20000:1)

    Also get a 2ms refresh rate monitor, especially if your going to play fast games on it, you get almost no ghosting at all. (or at the very least 5ms)

    Get a 22" or 24", and I also recommend getting a 16:9 Aspect ratio monitor. (Better for movies) But 16:10 will do just fine and I believe it's still the standard when it comes to computer monitors, but eventually 16:9 will become standard.

    If your gonna play PS3 on it, make sure it supports HDCP.

    On a side note, I totally recommend using dual monitor to work. It really boosts your productivity, worth the investment if you can afford it. They don't need to be identical, atm at home I have a 24" next to a 22".

    I got a Samsung Syncmaster 2494 24" monitor last black friday for $190 off newegg... Couldn't be happier with it. Unfortunately it seems like they've phased out the 2494, but its specs are nearly identical to this one: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6824001388

    A bit more expensive.. but if you're patient you'll find it on sale somewhere for probably around the same price.

    And there are 2 different contrast ratios... Dynamic and static.

    I won't explain them, wikipedia does a better job:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrast_ratio

    My samsung monitor has a 50000:1 dynamic and 1000:1 static. That other samsung I linked has a 70000:1 dynamic and 1000:1 static. The asus you posted has a 20000:1 dynamic and 1000:1 static.

    Also, it seems like there is some discrepancy in how contrast ratios are tested... like there is no real standard for it. I feel like contrast ratio and refresh rate are things best left to actually seeing the monitor in person. Looking at monitors/tvs in a store, sometimes I'll see a screen which has significantly better contrast(to my eye) which has a lower contrast rating than one with worse contrast(again, to my eye)... if that makes sense.

    Dont care about contrast ratio because at the end of the day, all that "dynamic" contrast is just fake. 1000:1 static is all just fine for consumer screens.

    I have the Samsung 2494HM. I can only recommend it with caution. Colors and contrast are nice for the price but here is the catch:

    - the buttons are atrocious. i utterly hate when i have to use them

    - having a PC and a PS3 connected is a problem. both need very different settings but the monitor doesn't save seperate profiles so you have to deal with the above mentioned shitty buttons all the time

    - after less then a year my monitor got a yellowish tint in the lower left corner

    The twiz is right! Do not go by dynamic contrast ratios! They mean nothing! If you have a monitor that does like 400:1 or 600:1 static contrast ratio, that's pretty good. Most netbooks do like 140:1 and so on.

    If you're looking for a good monitor, Dell Ultrasharp U2711 or U2411. Someone buy me one!

    Quote from dux

    20000:1 bad?60000:1 better?

    I never understood contrast ratios.

    Well, yeah that's the general idea. The higher the number, the bigger the difference is between bright(white) and dark(black). It kinda relates to both how bright the backlight is and how much of it bleeds thru when its supposed to be black. This leads to one of the big advantages of OLED displays, which require no backlighting; each individual led (3 leds (r-g-b) compose each pixel) provides the necessary luminosity, so there is no bleed thru. Without any background lighting, blacks are truly black.

    This makes contrast ratio inapplicable, since regardless of how bright the display is, the "bright" will always be infinitely brighter than the black - doesn't matter if its 1/0 or 100000/0, its still infinite. I imagine in a few years OLED displays will be the standard, and we can all forget about contrast ratio forever The only thing that will matter is brightness, which is easily measured and non-fudgeable by manufacturers (actually I'm sure they'll find a way...)

    But with a traditional backlit LCD, there are several ways in which manufacturers can 'tweak' the test to give more favorable numbers, since there are a multitude of settings you can change on the monitor which basically alter in the input signal, and multiple interpretations of the test(since there is no standard). Wiki:

    Quote

    A notable recent development in the LCD technology is the so-called "dynamic contrast" (DC). When there is a need to display a dark image, the display would underpower the backlight lamp (or decrease the aperture of the projector's lens using an iris), but will proportionately amplify the transmission through the LCD panel. This gives the benefit of realizing the potential static contrast ratio of the LCD panel in dark scenes when the image is watched in a dark room. The drawback is that if a dark scene does contain small areas of superbright light, image quality may be over exposed

    So if a monitor has this feature and you crank its effect all the way up, if you send the monitor a full-black image it'll be pretty close to black, and if you send it a full white image it'll be pretty damn bright, giving you a really high dynamic contrast ratio. But, unless you like staring at alternating black and white screens, this isn't really any good for typical use. For example, a movie scene in which its really dark except for a few well lit areas will either:

    a) have lots of bleed thru on the black parts (dynamic contrast setting low/off)

    b) the well lit areas will be overbright/washed out (dynamic contrast setting high)

    How accurately the monitor can compensate for the dimmed backlight with dynamic contrast in a mostly-black scene(without overbrightening) is what really matters in regards to accurate image display, not the ratio of bright to dark. This is something that is not measured, as it'd be rather difficult to do, so.. it's best to go look at the screen in action and decide what you like best. Ignore the contrast ratio, ignore the refresh rate, just go and look at them. It's all a balancing act, and its all the viewer's preference. You can't measure that. While contrast ratio and refresh rate and stuff like that give a somewhat useful indication of its performance, it doesn't mean it actually looks good.

    Its like me saying I can type 200 words per minute. But what I don't say is I only spell a tenth of the words right. Well what good is that!?

    Quote from cyberjunkie

    If you're looking for a good monitor, Dell Ultrasharp U2711 or U2411. Someone buy me one!

    Use a 27 " at work and I love it.

    Unfortunately, no

    I'm planning on just waiting until Christmas time in hopes for some good sales. What's another three months to me if I can save some $$$.

    I have two HP ZR24w at work, which I can flip on the side.

    Only problem is that the version of CITRIX we use doesnt work with 2x24" and it crashes my pc if I try to move a CITRIX window onto my 2nd monitor.

    Ive heard that 22" + 24" works tho, weird...

    Skjalg: what do you think of them? I'm tempted to buy one, but I've heard that the black depth is poor unless you set the contrast to 100% and them use a hardware calibrator. I can probably borrow a calibrator from work, but it's hassle

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!

Register Yourself Login