EPT
What size monitor do you use? - Page 7
| Forum Index > Tech Support |
|
trifecta
United States6795 Posts
| ||
|
PheNOM_
United States417 Posts
On January 11 2011 16:38 semantics wrote: in LCD monitors the response time usually means gray to gray or black to white pixel response which reduces the after image ie ghosting that a few people can pick up on. Short of a high speed camera anything under 8ms is really hard to pick up on. the pixel response doesn't have much to do with the actual input latency of the monitor. Although if you are one of those people view sonic sells 120hz which have across the board better response times then the avg monitor, or you can buy the 1ms monitor, but it's likely under a gaming preset that turns off some things and really dips in the image quality. to me i rather spend that kind of money on a ips monitor from them and get better viewing angles and color accuracy. So it really isn't worth the money for a 2ms monitor over a 5ms? Unless you have the extra cash? | ||
|
Qwyn
United States2781 Posts
| ||
|
zoLo
United States5896 Posts
| ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
| ||
|
vek
Australia936 Posts
On January 11 2011 16:45 PheNOM_ wrote: So it really isn't worth the money for a 2ms monitor over a 5ms? Unless you have the extra cash? What hes saying is a lot of manufacturers skew the stats on pixel response times by measuring different things, grey to grey is different from black to white. It's very hard to just sit there, make a comparison, and say for certain that one is better than the other. Really... as long as the monitor you buy is a decent brand (Asus, Acer and Benq are some safe ones) and was manufactured in the past year or so you will be fine. Unless you do a lot of graphics work I would just stick with cheaper TN panels because in general they have better response times. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/RpkpI.jpg) The 1ms gray to gray viewsonic on the left and a Dell U2711 on the right which is a larger IPS avg of 6ms gray to gray. Most now only show gray to gray it's not so much manufacturing skewing that result it's just that they skew everything else dealing with picture quality. Like i said short of a high speed camera you're unlikely to notice. What you would notice in a side by side, is color, brightness, bleed though and viewing angles which not all monitors are so numb to. the 1ms viewsonic although may be fine for games it's just really washed out in the color department partly due to the bleed though and no matter how much you tweak it will never be just right. I way saying although the speed is measurable it's not very important in good quality picture which is what you buy a monitor for, i rather invest in one with a good stand that doesn't just tilt, one that can hit the colors properly with minor tweaking, one who doesn't have too much light or not enough in it. Also most monitors at the sub 300 range by default are so bright they burn your eyes out if you didn't have a well lit room all the time. | ||
|
LoCaD
Germany1634 Posts
Only Gripe I have thats why I do not necessary recommend this Monitor nowadays you only have 1 VGA Port and 1 DVI thats it no HDMI and i have to use lotse adapters for the DVI Port I finally got a Switch Port so I can change between PC use and PS3 without having to change the Cables everytime arround and its really compfy. | ||
|
Esjihn
United States164 Posts
Gotta rock that crt for sc1 baby | ||
|
BoonSolo
United Kingdom74 Posts
What do you guys think? | ||
|
Esjihn
United States164 Posts
| ||
|
Herpadurr
Monaco151 Posts
| ||
|
SushilS
2115 Posts
On January 09 2011 08:45 telfire wrote: It derails the topic when people like you reply just to start arguments and spew pure misinformation like "HD>not HD". It would continue to derail the thread if I continued to argue with you, so I will not. The bottom line is 2560x1600 is better in every way, and "HD" is likely the lowest resolution you'll ever find on a monitor 24 inches or bigger. When I purchased my monitor the price ended up being less than if I had gone with a low resolution "HD" monitor. Granted, that was partially due to buying my computer at the same time. Just trying to provide useful info to the OP. Wow! Thanks man. Didn't know that really. Grats... | ||
|
MrKibbles
United States19 Posts
One weird thing with this monitor is that occasionally it has a pretty big input lag, and then later in the day the lag will magically go away without me doing anything about it O.o Kind of wish I knew why it was doing that so I could make it have no lag whenever I want | ||
|
selboN
United States2523 Posts
| ||
|
Firkraag8
Sweden1006 Posts
Thinking of upgrading my 19", it's getting kinda old. But still works wonders for StartCraft 2! | ||
|
zYwi3c
Poland1811 Posts
On January 09 2011 08:03 TheAngelofDeath wrote: 24" of 1080p beauty. :D And whats the point using 1080p on that small screen ? U cant even see the difference between 720p and 1080p on 32-38" screens. 22" Dell 2209WA with s-IPS ( best for games ) here. | ||
|
zingmars
Latvia189 Posts
EDIT: Then again, if you're buying a monitor, go for 1920x1080 one. They usually don't destroy your bank balance completely, and you'll certainly will have more than enough space on your desktop (providing of course, that you got the hardware capable to support everything you want on that resolution). | ||
|
.Enigma.
Sweden1461 Posts
| ||
|
kajba
Sweden16 Posts
| ||
| ||
