Some of the NEC professional range look quite good - for example this one
http://www.dcsplc.co.uk/product/14756
Some of the NEC professional range look quite good - for example this one
http://www.dcsplc.co.uk/product/14756
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Been helped or just 'Like' a post? Use the Thanks button!
My broadband speed - 750 Meganibbles/minute
Yeah, its the 20" - 22" thing thats got me thinking now, whether its worth it..given that I currently have a 17" CRT, either would be a huge improvement!
"If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much room!"
- me, 2005
Just wondering.. the ratio e.g. 800:1 does that matter much? As some are 1000:1 and well someone who said the best monitor was a Dell 2007WFP which is only 800:1 and some cheaper ones have 1000:1
Also can someone explain what difference the response time makes please? What is a good response time?
Okay and finally someone mentioned that Standard Definition videos won't look great.. Does that mean I can download 1080i/1080p and they will look amazing in proper HD?!
Sorry for all the questions..
the 800:1/1000:1 numbers are the Contrast Ratio, my limited understanding tells me that it is a ratio between the white/black that the Monitor can display, so the greater the number the better - so long as it is a genuine number and not one that comes from some tricks in the monitor (as with a 3000:1 monitor I saw recently).
Response times are how long it takes a pixel to change, the quoted times are usualy Grey to Grey response times, as opposed to Black to White, which would take longer I think - modern monitors are so fast that I don't think response time is an issue now unless you are watching something really fast paced.
If you download HD Videos and watch them on a high-res TFT then yes, they will look rather good I expect
"If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much room!"
- me, 2005
Thanks for that..
Well after going through the thread I'm left with these:
Dell UltraSharp 2007WFP
Samsung SM206BW
LG L204WT
Dell E207WFP
I think the top 2 are the best.. I prefer the Samsung as it's cheaper, and the contrast ratio is 3000:1 compared to the Dell's 800:1 .. But the Dell's response time is 16ms and the Samsung's is only 2ms!
I don't know which one to go for from the two...
So the Samsung is the better buy based on those criteria...
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Been helped or just 'Like' a post? Use the Thanks button!
My broadband speed - 750 Meganibbles/minute
Okay.. is that just because of the higher contrast ratio? Will it definitely be 3000:1 or is that a trick as someone else said?
Isn' the Dell's 16ms response time amazing though? Or is that not going to make much of a difference.
Cavalier-X: Biostar TP45-HP ¦ E4600@3.1ghz - Xigmatek Red Scorpion (OCZ Freeze) ¦ OCZ ReaperX 2x2gb (792mhz @ 4-4-4--12) ¦ Xigmatek NRP-MC651 ¦
Palit 8800gt ¦ X-fi Fatal1ty Gamer ¦ Coolermaster Cavalier 3 (Silver/Windowed) ¦
Poseidon Magma: MSI P45 Zilent ¦ E6300@3.0ghz - Coolermaster Hyper 212 (MX-2) ¦ Corsair 2x2gb (880mhz @ 5-5-5-15) ¦ Corsair HX450w ¦
xfx 9600gt Alphadog edition (780/1950/1000) ¦ X-fi Gamer ¦ Gigabyte Poseiden ¦
bugger, payday is tomorrow, that might've been worth a punt! (well, Friday- but is showed up on Wednesday last time)
(although, TO stuff disappears at 12pm, does it not?)
"If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much room!"
- me, 2005
At the end of the day, all theese numbers are for the perfect working version of the monitors I guess, the difference between black and white wont always be 800:1 etc etc, the quality of the components in a technically "lesser" (going by the numbers) monitor could make it a "better" monitor than a higher specced one.
One could perhaps make an analogy of it like this;
AM2 Athlon6000+ has a clock speed of 3Ghz (I think, if not - it does for this example!), but the Intel Core2 Duo E6600 has a clockspeed of 2.2/2.4Ghz (again, can't remember but those numbers sound about right) - now looking at that it seems a no-brainer to get the Athlon - but go see what everyone is buying for high-end machines theese days, Intel CPU's!
That perhaps wasn't the best analogy, but hopefully it encourages you to look beyond the initial numbers, and more at reviews from actual people who have used the monitors, it can be hard to absolutley judge something - subjective opinions from groups of people are usually indicitave of how good something really is.
...now, I typed that all really quickly - hopefully it makes sense!
"If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much room!"
- me, 2005
Well I'm down to choosing between the Dell 2007WFP and Samsung SM206BW - well I think they're the best 2 from the thread...
The Samsung is cheaper, and it has good reviews but so does the Dell (which is more expensive)...
Any final opinions before I choose?
The Dell is an IPS panel and there is no chance a MVA or TN panel can beat it regardless of response time.
It's more expensive for a reason and when you do choose it you'll be thankful you did.
At home I have the 2007WFP, brand new HP 22" and the Dell E207. The HP is very nice but it's viewing angles are crap as is the colour accuracy (it's too saturated, looks nice at first but not good for photo editing) - The Dell 2007WFP is perfect for everything.
The Dell is also the only screen I have seen so far that has has little to no backlight bleeding in the corners that you can notice when watching movies/playing games. it's almost totally uniform.
Chris Tucker will be angry if you choose any other screen!
Last edited by mrk; 18-07-2007 at 03:13 AM.
peterb (18-07-2007)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)