|
monitors
|
|
|
dragnandy
Senior Member
|
14. October 2007 @ 21:02 |
Link to this message
|
|
not quite sure if its is in the display section, or not because its about monitors, but not HD screens.
any who, about the computer monitors, whats considered good for a contrast ratio? what does that mean? and also, what is good for the brightness?
im planning on getting a monitor too, for my dad and im not sure whats considered good or sub par. appreciate any advice.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
15. October 2007 @ 07:52 |
Link to this message
|
Contrast ratio is the ratio of the brighest the screen can go to the dimmest it can go. Since LCDs can't display a perfect black, the white is a quantifiable number of times brighter than black. A good contrast ratio is four figures, so 1000:1 or better. However, my monitor has a contrast ratio of 700:1 and is more than acceptable.
As for the brightness, it is usually measured in a unit called nits, or candela per metre squared. A good value for that is above 300 nits, better still, 400.
|
|
dragnandy
Senior Member
|
15. October 2007 @ 20:03 |
Link to this message
|
|
thanks sammorris, ill keep these in mind when i look for monitors.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
16. October 2007 @ 05:11 |
Link to this message
|
|
if you're after a certain size, let me know and I may be able to hunt down a good one for you.
|
|
dragnandy
Senior Member
|
11. November 2007 @ 12:48 |
Link to this message
|
|
sammorris do you know any good ones that are around 20" with 1000:1 ratio and 400 nits? 350nits is good too. sorry if this thread is a little old
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
11. November 2007 @ 12:49 |
Link to this message
|
Are we talking normal aspect or widescreen here?
|
|
dragnandy
Senior Member
|
11. November 2007 @ 12:58 |
Link to this message
|
aspect as in the square monitors? if so, widescreen i guess. wouldn't that be better?i always just assumed widescreen would be better. what would you prefer
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 11. November 2007 @ 12:59
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
11. November 2007 @ 13:14 |
Link to this message
|
|
Well for the same screen size, a normal 4:3 monitor will be bigger. It just depends what sort of use you'll have for it. If you watch a lot of films, widescreen would be better, but you can get very nice 4:3 monitors with good performance nowadays. The general trend is towards widescreen, but for 20", a 4:3 monitor will have a resolution of 1600x1200, whereas the widescreen will be 1680x1050.
|
|
dragnandy
Senior Member
|
11. November 2007 @ 16:53 |
Link to this message
|
|
well it seems the only main use of a widescreen monitor is for movie/video viewing right? so i guess ill go with a 4:3 monitor.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
11. November 2007 @ 17:18 |
Link to this message
|
|
Most games support widescreen these days, so I'm not trying to dissuade you, but that's their primary selling point.
|
|
dragnandy
Senior Member
|
11. November 2007 @ 19:37 |
Link to this message
|
|
yea i think ill go for the 4:3 because doesnt widescreen have alot of excess space on the sides of the browser when surfing the internet? and if i just enlarge it, itll enlarge the text and look weird, so yea 4:3 is suitable for me. so which kind of 20" 4:3 are good?
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
11. November 2007 @ 19:49 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by dragnandy:
yea i think ill go for the 4:3 because doesnt widescreen have alot of excess space on the sides of the browser when surfing the internet? and if i just enlarge it, itll enlarge the text and look weird, so yea 4:3 is suitable for me. so which kind of 20" 4:3 are good?
I am viewing this site, on my 24" widescreen monitor, running at its native resolution of 1920x1200, and all looks well.
Life is good!
GrandpaBruce - Vietnam Vet - 1970 - 1971
Computer: Intel Core i7-920 Nehalim;Asus P6T Deluxe V2
|
|
dragnandy
Senior Member
|
12. November 2007 @ 01:23 |
Link to this message
|
|
its just so hard to chose! lol. well id like to hear what people think about monitors, 4:3 or widescreen. anybody have anything to say about it? pros or cons?
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 12. November 2007 @ 01:25
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
12. November 2007 @ 09:40 |
Link to this message
|
I've owned two widescreen PC monitors, and they are both perfectly fine for all uses. Because the resolution is changed, nothing gets stretched horribly when you're word processing etc, but it does require games to support widescreen resolutions. If they don't, you will experience reduced picture quality. As of the moment, all games manufacturers support widescreen resolutions except EA, who don't support it for any of their games.
Games like Crysis that are only published by EA are fine, since they were made by companies who actually know how to code games properly, but things like the need for speed series, and all the EA Sports games will look a little blurry on a widescreen.
On the other hand, getting a 4:3 monitor means you won't be able to play DVDs or HD films occupying the whole of your screen (unless you stretch them which looks a bit nasty). Especially if you find a panoramic film (2.16:1 is it? something like that), that will in fact use less than half of your screen size.
Then there's the size of the monitors themselves. A 20" 4:3 monitor is 194 square inches in size. A 20" widescreen monitor is hardly any smaller, but carries a resolution with 10% fewer pixels, so the image definition isn't quite as good.
So it's decision time. The Dell, 2007FP is an awesome 4:3 monitor, but I don't really know about any others. With widescreens you have a huge market to choose from, and most people seem to be buying widescreen monitors these days...
|
|
dragnandy
Senior Member
|
12. November 2007 @ 13:28 |
Link to this message
|
|
for widescreen would this be good?
[url=http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/products/Displays/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=320-6140][/url]
im just narrowing down my options for widescreen and 4:3. im thinking about turning to widescreen because i do watch a lot of my movies on the computer, but i have some old games that im pretty sure doesnt support widescreen and dont want loss of quality.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
12. November 2007 @ 14:42 |
Link to this message
|
|
Bear in mind a large number of games that don't support widescreen can actually be modified to run in widescreen mode, it just takes a bit of googling and .ini file editing. The 2008WFP should be an excellent monitor. All the other Ultrasharp ones certainly are.
|
|
dragnandy
Senior Member
|
12. November 2007 @ 17:06 |
Link to this message
|
how much are average 20" monitors by the way? i want something thats good but not too expensive. the 2008WFP is nearly 300, and ive seen monitors a lot more, but also a lot cheaper.
if the games do not support widescreen can i still use them without modifying it? even if i lose quality. or is there a way to to just play in its normal 4:3 res. with some black empty space on the side so it wouldnt lose the quality?
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 12. November 2007 @ 17:08
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
12. November 2007 @ 17:33 |
Link to this message
|
If games don't support widescreen, they'll still work, and they won't even look too bad. I'm just a bit of a graphics obsessive so I can clearly notice the difference, some probably can't even tell. You can probably fiddle with your graphics drivers to modify the size of the image on the screen if the res isn't right. My monitor automatically resizes the image if I run 2048x1536, but I don't think it does it for other resolutions, and I don't know if any other monitors do it.
As for cost, there are cheaper 20" monitors out there, but I personally wouldn't skimp on one, a good monitor is a very valuable thing to have, and the Dell Ultrasharps are some of the best.
|
|
dragnandy
Senior Member
|
16. November 2007 @ 01:23 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
16. November 2007 @ 12:04 |
Link to this message
|
|
They both look like decent monitors, I'm dubious about the 5000:1 contrast, that's higher than I've ever seen before on an LCD.
As for "HD quality stuff" I've no idea what you mean, explain?
|
|
dragnandy
Senior Member
|
1. December 2007 @ 15:40 |
Link to this message
|
|
oh and another question. when i play a widescreen movie on a 3:4, it still plays the movie widescreen, but just smaller than if i play it on a widescreen monitor right?? but whhat if i play a movie that is in 3:4 format? how would that look?
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
1. December 2007 @ 16:04 |
Link to this message
|
If you play a 4:3 res clip on a widescreen monitor, it'll just fill up the middle part of the screen and put black bars either side.
|
|
dragnandy
Senior Member
|
20. January 2008 @ 15:27 |
Link to this message
|
|
hey sammorris even though this is an old topic, i decided to get a 4:3 monitor. and before, i had widescreen monitor choices. and now that i decided to get a 4:3, i have no clue which monitors to get. Ive been looking at 20" 4:3 monitors, but i cannot find any good ones. Are 4:3 more expensive than widescreens? when i was looking for them, they seem more expensive. can you request some good monitors?
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
20. January 2008 @ 15:31 |
Link to this message
|
20" 4:3 monitors are more expensive typically because they're far more uncommon (and because they offer a higher resolution). The only one I've laid my eyes on is the Dell 2007FP, I haven't really done much research into the area, but I looked into that one as it is the perfect sidebar companion to my 3007.
|
