EPTViewing angle is important if you want to flip it into portrait mode though and I definitely would not flip VA monitors into portrait. Their viewing angles are more similar to TN than IPS to be quite honest. If I remember correctly, the pixel matrix of VA looks strange when flipped into portrait too.
Teamliquid Monitor Thread - Page 29
| Forum Index > Tech Support |
Womwomwom
5930 Posts
Viewing angle is important if you want to flip it into portrait mode though and I definitely would not flip VA monitors into portrait. Their viewing angles are more similar to TN than IPS to be quite honest. If I remember correctly, the pixel matrix of VA looks strange when flipped into portrait too. | ||
|
phlebas
Germany60 Posts
I ordered 2 Dell 2209WA 3 years ago for me and my father and we are/were really really happy with them. But something about half a year ago I noticed that colors on the right edge of the display look strange: picture I had a dark desktop image at that time so I only noticed this in 3dsmax and it didn't bother me that much. I still wanted to contact the Dell Support about this, but I was to lazy for this until last week. So I called the customer support and the friendly women said right away that they will REPLACE my monitor because of this. Notice that the monitor was a little over 3 years old by that date! I had a huge grin on my face for the rest of the day because I was about getting a complete new display by monday, hehe. Problem is, they send me a U2212HM instead of my 2209WA because my monitor isn't available anymore! Some facts about the monitors: 2209WA 22 inch, 16:10 ratio, IPS panel with 1680x1050 resolution weights a TON (I think because of the backlight, the new ones got all LED) price was 280€ when I bought it prad.de rated it "very good" U2212HM 21.5 inch, 16: 9 ratio, IPS, 1920x1080 full HD res price on amazon 180€ prad.de rated this one "good" I don't know what to think about this. 16: 9 ratio on only 21.5" is so damn tiny compared to my 22" 16:10. Its like 4 cm smaller in height. I need a monitor for Office/PS/3dsmax and browsing AND gaming, dammit! On the other hand its really awesome that they actually replaced my monitor even out of warranty. Well, a display failure after 3 years of usage is not what I expect of a Dell product as well. I called the support again and she said they try to find my model, but it will take 2 days. Didn't got an answer by today so I'm gonna call again tomorrow. Hope to get at least the 23 inch version of the 16: 9 monitor, the U2312HM instead of the tiny one they send me... To bad Dell doesn't produce any IPS monitors in 22" that are 16:10. | ||
|
jujijuji
1 Post
| ||
|
Cookie
Canada94 Posts
http://www.memoryexpress.com/Products/MX37361 | ||
|
Infernal_dream
United States2359 Posts
On September 27 2012 03:21 phlebas wrote: I just have to share a story here. I ordered 2 Dell 2209WA 3 years ago for me and my father and we are/were really really happy with them. But something about half a year ago I noticed that colors on the right edge of the display look strange: picture I had a dark desktop image at that time so I only noticed this in 3dsmax and it didn't bother me that much. I still wanted to contact the Dell Support about this, but I was to lazy for this until last week. So I called the customer support and the friendly women said right away that they will REPLACE my monitor because of this. Notice that the monitor was a little over 3 years old by that date! I had a huge grin on my face for the rest of the day because I was about getting a complete new display by monday, hehe. Problem is, they send me a U2212HM instead of my 2209WA because my monitor isn't available anymore! Some facts about the monitors: 2209WA 22 inch, 16:10 ratio, IPS panel with 1680x1050 resolution weights a TON (I think because of the backlight, the new ones got all LED) price was 280€ when I bought it prad.de rated it "very good" U2212HM 21.5 inch, 16: 9 ratio, IPS, 1920x1080 full HD res price on amazon 180€ prad.de rated this one "good" I don't know what to think about this. 16: 9 ratio on only 21.5" is so damn tiny compared to my 22" 16:10. Its like 4 cm smaller in height. I need a monitor for Office/PS/3dsmax and browsing AND gaming, dammit! On the other hand its really awesome that they actually replaced my monitor even out of warranty. Well, a display failure after 3 years of usage is not what I expect of a Dell product as well. I called the support again and she said they try to find my model, but it will take 2 days. Didn't got an answer by today so I'm gonna call again tomorrow. Hope to get at least the 23 inch version of the 16: 9 monitor, the U2312HM instead of the tiny one they send me... To bad Dell doesn't produce any IPS monitors in 22" that are 16:10. 4cm is "so damn tiny"? Is this real life? You're getting a better resolution as well. Then you call it tiny it later on too....it's fucking .5 inch. That's it. I just..I really don't understand. | ||
|
phlebas
Germany60 Posts
On September 27 2012 08:56 Infernal_dream wrote: + Show Spoiler + On September 27 2012 03:21 phlebas wrote: I just have to share a story here. I ordered 2 Dell 2209WA 3 years ago for me and my father and we are/were really really happy with them. But something about half a year ago I noticed that colors on the right edge of the display look strange: picture I had a dark desktop image at that time so I only noticed this in 3dsmax and it didn't bother me that much. I still wanted to contact the Dell Support about this, but I was to lazy for this until last week. So I called the customer support and the friendly women said right away that they will REPLACE my monitor because of this. Notice that the monitor was a little over 3 years old by that date! I had a huge grin on my face for the rest of the day because I was about getting a complete new display by monday, hehe. Problem is, they send me a U2212HM instead of my 2209WA because my monitor isn't available anymore! Some facts about the monitors: 2209WA 22 inch, 16:10 ratio, IPS panel with 1680x1050 resolution weights a TON (I think because of the backlight, the new ones got all LED) price was 280€ when I bought it prad.de rated it "very good" U2212HM 21.5 inch, 16: 9 ratio, IPS, 1920x1080 full HD res price on amazon 180€ prad.de rated this one "good" I don't know what to think about this. 16: 9 ratio on only 21.5" is so damn tiny compared to my 22" 16:10. Its like 4 cm smaller in height. I need a monitor for Office/PS/3dsmax and browsing AND gaming, dammit! On the other hand its really awesome that they actually replaced my monitor even out of warranty. Well, a display failure after 3 years of usage is not what I expect of a Dell product as well. I called the support again and she said they try to find my model, but it will take 2 days. Didn't got an answer by today so I'm gonna call again tomorrow. Hope to get at least the 23 inch version of the 16: 9 monitor, the U2312HM instead of the tiny one they send me... To bad Dell doesn't produce any IPS monitors in 22" that are 16:10. 4cm is "so damn tiny"? Is this real life? You're getting a better resolution as well. Then you call it tiny it later on too....it's fucking .5 inch. That's it. I just..I really don't understand. The difference between 16:10 and 16: 9 ratio is in my opinion quite big. I had both monitors right next to each other when I still had my 22" and on the 21.5" everything (especially text) was much smaller because of the higher resolution+the smaller size. Anyway, they said they try to find my exact monitor model, yay! | ||
|
Womwomwom
5930 Posts
On September 27 2012 07:32 jujijuji wrote: Between the ASUS VG23AH, Dell U2312HM, and the Benq GW2450HM which one would be the best assuming they're the same price? Asus VG23AH in about every way but contrast when compared with the Benq monitor. Dell will provide better warranty support and comes with an inbuilt USB hub. The Benq has the best contrast but worse everything else. Edit: The Asus has 3D too if you care about that. | ||
|
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
On September 27 2012 23:07 phlebas wrote: The difference between 16:10 and 16: 9 ratio is in my opinion quite big. I had both monitors right next to each other when I still had my 22" and on the 22.5" everything (especially text) was much smaller because of the higher resolution+the smaller size. Anyway, they said they try to find my exact monitor model, yay! The difference between 16:10 and 16: 9 isn't quite large, it's only about 100 pixels. The problem is you're comparing 1680x1050 with 1920x1080 instead of 1600x900. The pixel density of a 23" @ 1920x1080 is still going to be higher than what you are currently using and I think it's pretty hard to distinguish between a 21.5" and 23" for most people. | ||
|
phlebas
Germany60 Posts
On September 28 2012 00:56 skyR wrote: The difference between 16:10 and 16: 9 isn't quite large, it's only about 100 pixels. The problem is you're comparing 1680x1050 with 1920x1080 instead of 1600x900. The pixel density of a 23" @ 1920x1080 is still going to be higher than what you are currently using and I think it's pretty hard to distinguish between a 21.5" and 23" for most people. I would be perfectly happy with a 23" @ 1920x1080. But you really lose a lot of display height with a 21.5" and 16: 9 compared to 22" 16:10. | ||
|
ssj114
Afghanistan461 Posts
I currently have a Dell 19 inch monitor with a 1280x1024 display - works perfect for Brood War when I play it and it's generally big enough for me. I'm thinking of getting an upgrade though, mainly because I'm bored! No price limit. I've had this 19 inch since Jan 2007 - it's served me extremely well and I actually think the picture quality isn't obviously inferior to some of the latest models out there. I run Windows XP Professional, 32-bit. This is 99.9% what I do with my computer (higher is generally more frequent): 1. Browse the internet (mostly "normal" stuff like forums, youtube, e-mail, chatting, news, online web-based games etc) 2. Play Starcraft Brood War (no other installed games) 3. Watch movies and TV shows 4. Testing software in a Virtual Machine (not graphic related) - for example, security software. I want to stick with a Dell monitor - I'm tossing up between these options: 1. Dell U2312HM: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_u2312hm.htm I've actually almost decided against this one - I went to the store and had a look at it physically - it's not much bigger than my current 19 inch! It's simply wider and the picture quality wasn't obviously better. 2. Dell U2412M: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_u2412m.htm This one was obviously bigger than my current monitor. However, it's nearly a year old - since I'm mostly getting a new monitor for fun, I'd like to get the "latest and greatest". I'm also worried whether Brood War will display correctly on such a large screen. 3. Dell U2713M: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_u2713hm.htm This is the one I'm currently serious about. 27 inches is a significant upgrade and obviously bigger than my current 19 inch. This monitor gets some amazing reviews and only came out last month. However, again, I have concerns about how Brood War will display on it. Any thoughts will be most appreciated. | ||
|
Womwomwom
5930 Posts
The biggest difference between the Dell U2312HM/U2412M and the Dell U2713M is the anti-glare coating. The Dell U2713M's antiglare coating is significantly lighter so its less obtrusive. If you go compare the Dell U2312HM with nearby monitors, you can probably tell a difference in screen texture. That's the antiglare coating. Brood War will run stretched on a wide screen monitor unless the monitor has 4:3 scaling support. If it has 4:3 scaling support, it will display the game in the middle of the screen but have black bars on the side like so: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/SkeYf.png) All of these Dell monitors have 4:3 display support so playing Brood War unstretched is not a problem. The Dell U2713M is obviously the best monitor of the three. Its got the highest resolution, best scaling support, best motion performance, better antiglare coating, USB 3.0 support, etc. The only problem is the input lag since this monitor is designed for professional use and not for gaming. If you can deal with 20ms of input lag, then its a good option. If you can't deal with 20ms of input lag, then its not a good option. Dell has really good product support but it'd probably be easier to look at different options currently on the market. The Asus PB278Q could be an interesting alternative because Asus is demoing it through their Republic of Gamers youtube page, suggesting that Asus might have put some effort into designing some low lag circuitry for it. | ||
|
Stone
United Kingdom155 Posts
Dell U2212HM £99.99 Ebay £99 UKoverclockers £180 TFT Central Review | ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
On October 01 2012 05:17 Stone wrote: For anyone in the UK interested, this looks like a good deal? Dell U2212HM £99.99 Ebay £99 UKoverclockers £180 TFT Central Review Part of the listing is for the 1909W instead (19", 1440 x 900, 16:10, 5ms). Could just be a screwup in listing the product, considering the price. Anyone looking would probably want to confirm before buying. | ||
|
phosphorylation
United States2935 Posts
| ||
|
Womwomwom
5930 Posts
I'm actually not sure how it works exactly, since there are so many models, but I really don't suggest the Apple method (plunger on screen -> pull hard) because for the most part these monitors are built like shit. If you think this is going to damage the LCD panel, it won't. The glass is just an aesthetic layer that goes infront of the glossy panel. | ||
|
ssj114
Afghanistan461 Posts
On September 30 2012 23:48 Womwomwom wrote: Monitor technology has been quite stagnant. If you bought one of those awesome IPS monitors with the A-TW polarizer like 3 years ago, they'd still look as good, if not better, than today's monitors. The biggest difference between the Dell U2312HM/U2412M and the Dell U2713M is the anti-glare coating. The Dell U2713M's antiglare coating is significantly lighter so its less obtrusive. If you go compare the Dell U2312HM with nearby monitors, you can probably tell a difference in screen texture. That's the antiglare coating. Brood War will run stretched on a wide screen monitor unless the monitor has 4:3 scaling support. If it has 4:3 scaling support, it will display the game in the middle of the screen but have black bars on the side like so: All of these Dell monitors have 4:3 display support so playing Brood War unstretched is not a problem. The Dell U2713M is obviously the best monitor of the three. Its got the highest resolution, best scaling support, best motion performance, better antiglare coating, USB 3.0 support, etc. The only problem is the input lag since this monitor is designed for professional use and not for gaming. If you can deal with 20ms of input lag, then its a good option. If you can't deal with 20ms of input lag, then its not a good option. Dell has really good product support but it'd probably be easier to look at different options currently on the market. The Asus PB278Q could be an interesting alternative because Asus is demoing it through their Republic of Gamers youtube page, suggesting that Asus might have put some effort into designing some low lag circuitry for it. Thanks. Some good insight there. I don't think the input lag of the 27" will be a problem according to pretty much all the reviews out there. Also, the only game I play is Brood War. EDIT: by the way, what do people think about "backlight bleeding"? seems to be a universal problem across all modern monitors these days? The Dell U2713HM seems to have significant bottom left corner bleeding according to most home users that have written about it. | ||
|
Womwomwom
5930 Posts
Backlight bleeding is either caused by panel defects or bad hardware design. Considering the Dell U2713 has bleeding in the same location, it seems to be bad hardware design. To be fair, the bleeding becomes a whole lot less noticeable when you decrease the brightness and cameras tend to overexpose the problem. Most 2560x1440 monitors have these problems so if you want a perfect monitor, you're going to have to play monitor roulette. Edit: When I mean bad hardware design, I mean designs that put needless strain on the LCD panel. Some older Dell monitors could have their bleeding fixed by reinstalling the panel, for instance. Other monitors have an excessively thin design, which introduces problems like clouding and panel stress. This is a serious problem with Samsung's SA850 PLS monitor lineup. Thin monitors are attractive to many end users but they typically introduce unwanted image quality problems. There is still a reason why professional photo monitors are thick and heavy enough to kill someone with. | ||
|
ssj114
Afghanistan461 Posts
On October 01 2012 18:25 Womwomwom wrote: Well if the input lag is ever a problem, you can just return the monitor I guess. It varies from person to person. Some people can't handle more than 16ms, others can. Backlight bleeding is either caused by panel defects or bad hardware design. Considering the Dell U2713 has bleeding in the same location, it seems to be bad hardware design. To be fair, the bleeding becomes a whole lot less noticeable when you decrease the brightness and cameras tend to overexpose the problem. Most 2560x1440 monitors have these problems so if you want a perfect monitor, you're going to have to play monitor roulette. With what activity in particular would one notice input lag? I've gone for the U2713 anyway - $610 (US dollars). Pretty sure that's a really good price for a newly released 27" IPS monitor. | ||
|
Mysticesper
United States1183 Posts
| ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
On October 01 2012 19:21 Mysticesper wrote: FPS games make input lag and such much more noticeable. Anything with fast twitchy movements. Even movie action scenes at times. During a movie? We're talking about input lag, not the pixel responsiveness—the time it takes for the monitor to get the video signal and display that information. If the entire movie displayed 200ms late (never mind 20ms), how would you notice, since it's all in sync with itself? You would only notice for interactive content, where it feels like what you're doing isn't immediately reflected on screen, because what the monitor is showing you is whatever happened X ms ago. But below 20ms or so is next to impossible to tell by eye for the vast majority of people. It's more that you have slightly less time to react to visual stimulus, like if you need to make a click in 250 ms and the monitor is behind by 20 ms, you only actually have 230 ms. In some games, network latency from buffering would be much larger than this amount of time, but of course these effects are additive, so it's not like you want higher latency in any situation. | ||
| ||
