New
#1
Monitors
Ok, I'm thinking of buying a new monitor for around £100. Can you experts give me some advise and some suggestions.
Thanks in advance.
-Razo
Ok, I'm thinking of buying a new monitor for around £100. Can you experts give me some advise and some suggestions.
Thanks in advance.
-Razo
Hi Razo,
I'm unable to give recommendations, but I can bump this thread for you as well as ask for some more information that will help others give you better advice. *bump*
Will you be replacing your 17" SyncMaster, or setting up a dual-monitor display? Will you be needing RCA (composite or component) outputs in addition to VGA/DVI?
Cheers,
Walker
Windows Outreach Team
@Razo
Before I say anything, you should know that I am not an expert.
I dare say NO ONE is able to give you intelligible advice unless they thoroughly understand: (1) the specifications of the components of your existing system, (2) the primary purpose for which your system is or will be designed, (3) your plans to upgrade other components in the near future, and (4) have an appreciation of what role graphics plays in your computing life. Absent any of these criteria, at best, advice you will receive will be a slew of personal, subjective, and inapplicable opinions that entirely relate to what a particular user has or banal quotations from a Google search; at worst, they will be patronizing, if not condescending, "expert" offerings to the noob.
My suggestions:
1. NEVER consider any component in the abstract or in a vacuum. Why? Components (and their drivers) have to play well together. For example, someone might suggest a monitor that has a native resolution that your gfx card does not support.
2. Speaking of native resolution: the next step is to know and understand the global specifications of a component. Why? Apart from the thing being able to be used in your system, I think it is important to know before you buy because the abundance, or absence, of certain features drives the cost.
3. Go here and review the common features of an LCD monitor with an eye toward what is important to you. For example, if you are a gamer or watch a lot of movies on your computer, you might want a monitor with a fast response time (2ms) to reduce ghosting.
To the list I would add matte v. glossy screens. Most people think of these only in terms of glare (matte less, glossy more). But that is not the significant difference. What you rarely hear discussed is the quality of the images produced by the two. If you have ever seen matte photographs they are just that: matte - dull. Glossy photographs are rich and sharp (why they were not used often in portrait photography: accentuates blemishes). Glossy computer screens render very rich and vibrant colors. Is the difference great/significant? Depends on your primary use of the computer.
My point is to assist people in educating themselves to choose for themselves rather than to rely on the "expert." Alternatively stated, why be a sheep when you can be a wolf?
Once you've narrowed your choices down, see if you can get to a store where you might be able to view the different models. Also, once narrowed down, post back and solicit comments from folks who have the models under your consideration, or monitors with similar features.
Monk
Thank you HMonk for that excellent post. Well, I won't be using it to play any games at all to be honest. I'm also not that fond of watching movies on my pc either. Just for a single display that may look good.
If you look at my specs I need to update my info on my gfx card because I now have a ATI Sapphire HD 3450 that replaced my old nvidia geforcemx 440.
Anyways, something that would be suitable for a normal day on the computer. Not runnig many programs either. Adobe programs are probably the only heavy load I would actually use because I enjoy animating and making art that I post on newgrounds. I have VGA support and HDMI slot. Graphics card's native resolution is 1920x1200.
I'll update all of this on my first post. Plus, no dual monitors either.
Good plan, I think. What, in part, impels my post is the fact that there are hundreds of different monitors available these days. Having a working knowledge of some of the specs and which are important to you will aid in winnowing the lot.
Might you elaborate or give an example of what you mean by "animating and making art."
Monk
It had been 10 hours or so since Razo started the thread, with no replies yet. Chances are it would have gone unnoticed had I not replied, effectively "bumping" his thread to the top of the list (in the default forum view - descending by Last Post Time). The *bump* was just me being cute, and apparently failing
Cheers,
Walker
Windows Outreach Team
@Razo: sorry I did not get back sooner.
A few things . . .
1. Right off the bat, I should think a glossy screen monitor would be an advantage for you in terms of color rendering. May be very slightly more expensive than matte.
2. Next I do not think a terribly fast response time would be practical, i.e., I do not discern objects streaking across your screen. Thus response times (often referred to as latency) in the 8-12ms range will serve your needs. As response times increase costs go down.
3. For the projects about which you speak, I cannot see any advantage to getting much beyond a 22- or 23-inch screen. Subjective analysis follows: there seems to be general agreement that the optimal viewing distance of a 22-inch monitor is in the neighborhood of 26-30 inches. I sit about 28-inches from my monitors (one 22-inch, one 23-inch). The first question I would ask, where are you going to put the monitor: desk, hang it on a wall? Deep enough to accommodate optimal distance? And yes, some monitors can be either desk or wall mounted - one of the minor points your research uncovers; it may or may not matter to you.
4. Gfx cards/monitors come in all sorts of flavors regarding their ports/capabilities. Features such as HDMI and HDCP compliance relate to your desire to play protected media (Blu-ray) or HDTV through your card/monitor.
5. More often than not, folks who do a lot of video work like monitors capable of higher contrast ratios simply because they offer a greater latitude between black and white (blacks are blacker, whites are whiter with a wide range of intervening grays). On the other hand, you might consider on what type of monitor is your target audience going to view your creations, i.e., is what you see what they get - colorwise.
6. Brightness: most monitors are factory set at way too bright. By the way, LCD monitors have a limited life: at high contrast and brightness levels they fail more quickly.
7. Speaking of failing: review a mfr's policy on dead (or stuck) pixels (appear as always white or always black dots). The industry standard is such that it is considered "normal" to have a certain number of these. If you get a monitor that has a dead pixel dead center, you will not like it. Most major mfrs/Amazon do not quibble about dead pixels but it is just another thing to be aware of.
I imagine this should whet your whistle to keep the research going. It may take you a while but the lessons now learned will serve you life-long as computing advances.
One other thing I thought of that may matter: viewing angle. As you view your monitor at increasing angles (look at the screen from the side rather than dead on) the image deteriorates. Many suggest angles of 140 horizontal and 120 vertical as being the minimal. As a general rule, higher is better because you do not have to place yourself rigidly in front of the screen or two people can sit off-center and still see a good image. I think mine are around 170 horizontal - which I like because I am all over my desk.
Post back whenever.
Monk