Monitor questions


V

void

I have a 7 year old computer with a Matrox Millennium G400 video card and
a 17" CRT monitor. I can run in 800x600 comfortably, but if I try
1024x768, everything is a little small on my monitor. So I want to get a
larger LCD monitor.

First question: Does refresh rate matter with LCD monitors? I notice my
G400 supports a maximum of 1280x968, but the refresh rate would be 60 Hz.
If refresh rate doesn't matter with LCD, then I might get a large enough
monitor that lets me run in 1280x968.

Second question: Since my G400 does not support widescreen resolutions,
what would happen if I were to buy a widescreen LCD monitor? (I might
want a widescreen monitor so that I can use the capability when I upgrade
my computer.) Would the image stretch horizontally so that it fit all of
the screen? (That would be bad.) Or would there be empty black space on
both sides of the image? (That would be better.)
 
Ad

Advertisements

N

Noozer

void said:
I have a 7 year old computer with a Matrox Millennium G400 video card and a
17" CRT monitor. I can run in 800x600 comfortably, but if I try 1024x768,
everything is a little small on my monitor. So I want to get a larger LCD
monitor.
First question: Does refresh rate matter with LCD monitors? I notice my
G400 supports a maximum of 1280x968, but the refresh rate would be 60 Hz.
If refresh rate doesn't matter with LCD, then I might get a large enough
monitor that lets me run in 1280x968.
LCD's don't worry about refresh... 60Hz is fine.
Second question: Since my G400 does not support widescreen resolutions,
what would happen if I were to buy a widescreen LCD monitor? (I might
want a widescreen monitor so that I can use the capability when I upgrade
my computer.) Would the image stretch horizontally so that it fit all of
the screen? (That would be bad.) Or would there be empty black space on
both sides of the image? (That would be better.)
I can't say for sure, but the G400 should support wide resolutions. Have you
got the latest drivers from Matrox installed? I'm assuming that you're
running Windows.
 
E

Eric Gisin

void said:
I have a 7 year old computer with a Matrox Millennium G400 video card and
a 17" CRT monitor. I can run in 800x600 comfortably, but if I try
1024x768, everything is a little small on my monitor. So I want to get a
larger LCD monitor.
If you can't read 1024x768 on 17", you will not like ANY LCD.
I ran 1152x864 on 17" CRT, which is comparable to 1280x1024 on 19" LCD.

Try setting Advance Display to 120 DPI before you decide on anything.
First question: Does refresh rate matter with LCD monitors? I notice my
G400 supports a maximum of 1280x968, but the refresh rate would be 60 Hz.
If refresh rate doesn't matter with LCD, then I might get a large enough
monitor that lets me run in 1280x968.

Second question: Since my G400 does not support widescreen resolutions,
what would happen if I were to buy a widescreen LCD monitor? (I might
want a widescreen monitor so that I can use the capability when I upgrade
my computer.) Would the image stretch horizontally so that it fit all of
the screen? (That would be bad.) Or would there be empty black space on
both sides of the image? (That would be better.)
You can download the Matrox custom res utility (use google).
The card will do 1440x900 but not too much higher.
 
G

Grinder

void said:
I have a 7 year old computer with a Matrox Millennium G400 video card
and a 17" CRT monitor. I can run in 800x600 comfortably, but if I try
1024x768, everything is a little small on my monitor. So I want to get
a larger LCD monitor.

First question: Does refresh rate matter with LCD monitors? I notice my
G400 supports a maximum of 1280x968, but the refresh rate would be 60
Hz. If refresh rate doesn't matter with LCD, then I might get a large
enough monitor that lets me run in 1280x968.
60Hz should be fine for an LCD monitor. 1280x968 is a weird resolution,
is it 1280x960? That would be a standard 4:3 ratio.
Second question: Since my G400 does not support widescreen resolutions,
what would happen if I were to buy a widescreen LCD monitor? (I might
want a widescreen monitor so that I can use the capability when I
upgrade my computer.)
To each his own, but unless your PC is principally a media center, I
think widescreen is a waste of money.
Would the image stretch horizontally so that it
fit all of the screen? (That would be bad.)
Probably.

Or would there be empty
black space on both sides of the image? (That would be better.)
You might be able to configure the monitor/display adapter to do that,
but I think that would look like crap as well.

Display adapters just aren't that expensive. You can probably get a
more contemporary card for less than $40. Post what motherboard you
have, and I'm sure someone can make a budget-minded recommendation.

One thing that you might not be aware of is that LCD monitors have
what's called a native resolution. If you set it to display at
resolutions lower than that, the output will have to be approximated to
that output. That doesn't look so bad, but right at native resolution
looks better.

17" LCD monitors are slightly larger than CRT monitors, and typically
have native resolutions of 1280x1024. Given what you've said above,
that monitor running at native resolution might be a bit small for you.
If you step up to a 19" LCD monitor, you will get the same native
resolution, but larger pixels. Basic 19" monitors are only about $20
more than their 17" counterparts.
 
G

Grinder

I can't say for sure, but the G400 should support wide resolutions. Have you
got the latest drivers from Matrox installed? I'm assuming that you're
running Windows.
Just wanted to add something you both probably already know, but that I
recently found out:

Some display adapters present a list of resolutions that is sensitive to
what monitor is attached. So, it's entirely possibly that your card
does not appear to support widescreen resolutions because it knows your
monitor is *not* widescreen, and does not present those options.

It had always made sense to me that could be done, but it was only
recently that I actually saw it in action.
 
V

void

Noozer said:
I can't say for sure, but the G400 should support wide resolutions. Have
you got the latest drivers from Matrox installed? I'm assuming that you're
running Windows.
My drivers are close to the latest version, but not the latest version.
When I re-installed my OS a couple years ago, I noticed an issue with the
latest driver. A Matrox rep on their support forum (which is sadly no
longer available) said that a previous version of the driver did not have
the issue, so I've been using that one since.

But I think that I will get a non-widescreen monitor. I have some games
that only support non-widescreen resolutions, so I think they'll look
stretched on a widescreen monitor.
 
Ad

Advertisements

J

John Adams

Grinder said:
To each his own, but unless your PC is principally a media center, I
think widescreen is a waste of money.
Or a gamer. Wider FOV can make a big difference in games. Tunnel vision
has always been an issue with 4:3 screens with certain kinds of games.
 
P

Paul

void said:
My drivers are close to the latest version, but not the latest version.
When I re-installed my OS a couple years ago, I noticed an issue with
the latest driver. A Matrox rep on their support forum (which is sadly
no longer available) said that a previous version of the driver did not
have the issue, so I've been using that one since.

But I think that I will get a non-widescreen monitor. I have some games
that only support non-widescreen resolutions, so I think they'll look
stretched on a widescreen monitor.
Check page 3 here. It looks like the connectors are not of equal capability.
Maybe you're plugged into the secondary one ?

http://www.matrox.com/graphics/media/common/products/tech_info/pdfs/g400/chip_specs.pdf

And if you change video cards, don't forget to remove the Matrox drivers,
before you shut down and change hardware.

Paul
 
V

void

Grinder said:
60Hz should be fine for an LCD monitor. 1280x968 is a weird resolution,
is it 1280x960? That would be a standard 4:3 ratio.
You are right, it is 1280x960. And it also supports a 1280x1024
resolution, which I think is weird. Wouldn't that cause the image to be
compressed vertically on a non-widescreen monitor? Why would anyone want
to use that?

To each his own, but unless your PC is principally a media center, I think
widescreen is a waste of money.
I think I will go with a non-widescreen monitor for backward compatibility
reasons (I have some games that only run in non-widescreen resolutions).

You might be able to configure the monitor/display adapter to do that, but
I think that would look like crap as well.

Display adapters just aren't that expensive. You can probably get a more
contemporary card for less than $40. Post what motherboard you have, and
I'm sure someone can make a budget-minded recommendation.
I have an ABIT KT7-RAID, although since I'm getting a non-widescreen
monitor, I'll just stick with the G400.

One thing that you might not be aware of is that LCD monitors have what's
called a native resolution. If you set it to display at resolutions lower
than that, the output will have to be approximated to that output. That
doesn't look so bad, but right at native resolution looks better.
Thanks for that tidbit, I didn't know that.

What about dead pixels, is that still an issue? I remember reading about
that a few years ago, and many stores developed a policy that said if the
monitor had less than 8 dead pixels, then you could not exchange it for
another one.

17" LCD monitors are slightly larger than CRT monitors, and typically have
native resolutions of 1280x1024. Given what you've said above, that
monitor running at native resolution might be a bit small for you. If
you step up to a 19" LCD monitor, you will get the same native resolution,
but larger pixels. Basic 19" monitors are only about $20 more than their
17" counterparts.
When I got my 17" CRT monitor (a ViewSonic A70), I was surprised that
1024x768 looked a little small on it. Maybe because the actual viewable
size is 16". (LCD monitors don't distinguish between marketing size and
viewable size, do they?) And thanks for mentioning what size monitor
would be good for 1280x1024, I was wondering what size monitor I should
get. Wait a sec... you say 17" and 19" LCD monitors have native
resolutions of 1280x1024. So if I run in 1280x960 the image will not be
optimal. I'll have to wait for the answer to my question about why you
would want to run in 1280x1024 vs 1280x960.
 
K

kony

I have a 7 year old computer with a Matrox Millennium G400 video card and
a 17" CRT monitor. I can run in 800x600 comfortably, but if I try
1024x768, everything is a little small on my monitor. So I want to get a
larger LCD monitor.
??

1024x768 is not bad on a 17", but if you want a larger
monitor then by all means do it.
First question: Does refresh rate matter with LCD monitors? I notice my
G400 supports a maximum of 1280x968, but the refresh rate would be 60 Hz.
False. Your G400 supports higher than 60Hz at 1280x1024. I
have no idea where you got 1280x968, maybe you meant
1280x960.

Your G400 supports at least 85Hz at that resolution, and
also at higher resolutions.


If refresh rate doesn't matter with LCD, then I might get a large enough
monitor that lets me run in 1280x968.
With an LCD, you can run at 60Hz without the issues of
flicker present on a CRT.

However, there is little reason to try for a monitor that
supports 1280sx1024. Get a 1600x1200 monitor. Not to be
confused with 1680x1050 widescreen, there are still a few
1600x1200 monitors in the market and you would be wise to
buy one of those now, not waiting till there aren't around
anymore. Your video card will definitely support it, even
an older G200 I have was running at that resolution.

Second question: Since my G400 does not support widescreen resolutions,
what would happen if I were to buy a widescreen LCD monitor? (I might
want a widescreen monitor so that I can use the capability when I upgrade
my computer.) Would the image stretch horizontally so that it fit all of
the screen? (That would be bad.) Or would there be empty black space on
both sides of the image? (That would be better.)
yes it would stretch and that would be an image degradation.
Some find it more disagreeable than others but generally I'd
have to say you should avoid doing that, it is a worse
result.

There will be empty space if your video driver supports it,
but AFAIK, the old G400 driver does not. There may be a
Matrox Tech Support Teak tool that lets you set custom
resolutions if your driver is new enough, but you should
investigate that and try to do it, before you buy a
widescreen. If it doesn't seen to work, assume you cannot
use a widescreen and buy either a 1280x1024, 19", or a
1600x1200 20.n". I recommend the 1600x1200 today, unless
the budget is very tight.

Alternatively, while G400 had very crisp 2D for it's time,
today all video cards have equivalent 2D and much faster 3D.
Before paying a lot for a monitor you should consider it
could be time to upgrade the video card, especially if you
don't have a DVI output on the G400, that will significantly
increase monitor display quality above 1280x1024 resolution.
Even today's low-end, $30 after rebate current-gen video
cards will have a better result with today's displays so
long as they have DVI output... plus they can use widescreen
resolutions if you really wanted that... some people do and
some dont.

Personally, I bought a widescreen only because it was cost
effective. Going above 1600x1200 in 4:3 ratio LCDs is
obscenely expensive.
 
G

Grinder

You are right, it is 1280x960. And it also supports a 1280x1024
resolution, which I think is weird. Wouldn't that cause the image to be
compressed vertically on a non-widescreen monitor? Why would anyone
want to use that?
Yes, it's 5:4 instead of 4:3, but the difference is not really
noticeable. It's what I use.
What about dead pixels, is that still an issue? I remember reading
about that a few years ago, and many stores developed a policy that said
if the monitor had less than 8 dead pixels, then you could not exchange
it for another one.
It still is a crap shoot. I've been very lucky in that I've not gotten
any dead pixels on any of the LCDs I've purchased--including the
lower-end ones.
When I got my 17" CRT monitor (a ViewSonic A70), I was surprised that
1024x768 looked a little small on it. Maybe because the actual viewable
size is 16". (LCD monitors don't distinguish between marketing size and
viewable size, do they?)
No, they don't--that's why a 17" LCD monitor will have a bit larger
viewable area than a 17" CRT monitor.
And thanks for mentioning what size monitor
would be good for 1280x1024, I was wondering what size monitor I should
get. Wait a sec... you say 17" and 19" LCD monitors have native
resolutions of 1280x1024. So if I run in 1280x960 the image will not be
optimal. I'll have to wait for the answer to my question about why you
would want to run in 1280x1024 vs 1280x960.
I run 1280x1024 because it matches my monitor's native resolution.
 
Ad

Advertisements

V

void

kony said:
With an LCD, you can run at 60Hz without the issues of
flicker present on a CRT.

However, there is little reason to try for a monitor that
supports 1280sx1024. Get a 1600x1200 monitor. Not to be
confused with 1680x1050 widescreen, there are still a few
1600x1200 monitors in the market and you would be wise to
buy one of those now, not waiting till there aren't around
anymore. Your video card will definitely support it, even
an older G200 I have was running at that resolution.
You're right about my G400 supporting higher resolutions, including
1600x1200. Seems Windows only shows up to 1280x1024 because that's the
max that my monitor supports.

But I wonder if 1600x1200 on a 20" monitor might seem too small. At work
I use a 24" widescreen monitor, and I'll have to double check, but I think
that the resolution is set to 1920x1200, which seems just right.
 
K

kony

You are right, it is 1280x960. And it also supports a 1280x1024
resolution, which I think is weird. Wouldn't that cause the image to be
compressed vertically on a non-widescreen monitor? Why would anyone want
to use that?
No, the pixels on a 5:4 resolutions screen are arranged in a
5:4 ratio, it is not compressed. IE - if the native
resolution of a 19" display is 1280 x 1024, then ONLY 5:4
ratio resolutions will be displayed with the correct ratio.
Similarly, on a CRT with 4:3 ratio, only 4:3 ratio
resolutions will be displayed with correct ratio.

The difference is that LCDs come in multiple ratios you can
choose from, while most CRTs were only 4:3.

I think I will go with a non-widescreen monitor for backward compatibility
reasons (I have some games that only run in non-widescreen resolutions).
That is a good plan, especially considering that the G400
isn't powerful enough to run newer 3D games that can use
widescreen resolutions.
What about dead pixels, is that still an issue? I remember reading about
that a few years ago, and many stores developed a policy that said if the
monitor had less than 8 dead pixels, then you could not exchange it for
another one.
Yes it is still an issue, but it is fairly rare to get more
than 2 or 3 dead pixels and most monitors today have none or
one at most. The seller's policy on taking back a monitor
can vary quite a bit, some even have a more comprehensive
total satisfaction type of guarantee meaning you can return
the monitor for any reason... just be sure to investigate
their policy specific to LCDs before purchase.


When I got my 17" CRT monitor (a ViewSonic A70), I was surprised that
1024x768 looked a little small on it. Maybe because the actual viewable
size is 16". (LCD monitors don't distinguish between marketing size and
viewable size, do they?)
No, at least not by much. For example if you bought a 22"
it might actually be 21.6", and the same goes for other
resolutions it is very close. You can also calculate out
the real size by the pixel pitch * the horizontal and
vertical resolution.

And thanks for mentioning what size monitor
would be good for 1280x1024, I was wondering what size monitor I should
get. Wait a sec... you say 17" and 19" LCD monitors have native
resolutions of 1280x1024. So if I run in 1280x960 the image will not be
optimal. I'll have to wait for the answer to my question about why you
would want to run in 1280x1024 vs 1280x960.
You have no need to run 1280x960 do you? In everyday use
you would want to use 1280x1024 on a 19" LCD, but as for
your games I don't know... many older games do support
1280x1024.

If yours do not, I suggest getting a 20 to 21" 1600x1200
display, as it is 4:3 ratio and at worst the game could run
at a more traditional and common 1024 x768 or 800x600,
though of course since these are not the LCD's native
resolution the game will be less sharp, but it is far less
important on many games than on reading text at native
resolution.

Considering the cost of a quality monitor and that a
replacement video card can be had for under $40, you might
seriously consider replacing the video card instead of
letting it dictate and limit what monitor choices you
have... but it doesn't do anything about the gaming support
problem.
 
K

kony

If you can't read 1024x768 on 17", you will not like ANY LCD.
I ran 1152x864 on 17" CRT, which is comparable to 1280x1024 on 19" LCD.
You have a reasonable point but it's not necessarily true.
While one aspect of readability is size, another that is
also important is crispness. LCDs having far higher
per-pixel accuracy can make text far more readable.

Try setting Advance Display to 120 DPI before you decide on anything.

You can download the Matrox custom res utility (use google).
The card will do 1440x900 but not too much higher.
This is not true, it should be able to run up to 2048x1536
or so. Even the older G200 could run higher than 1600x1200.
 
M

~misfit~

Somewhere on teh interweb kony typed:
That is a good plan, especially considering that the G400
isn't powerful enough to run newer 3D games that can use
widescreen resolutions.
I too have some older games I play that don't do widescreen

I don't know if it's the limited model options that we get here in New
Zealand again but I'm finding it increasingly difficult to find new
non-widescreen LCD monitors. I have a 19", 1280 x 1024 monitor at the moment
and have been considering getting a larger one. However, after a web search
of the obvious local suppliers all I can find larger than 19" are
widescreen. Is this the same the world over? I thought I'd max the credit
card (again) and get myself a 21" non-widescreen monitor for Xmas, then I
could pass on my (perfectly good) 19" as a Xmas present to someone else.
If yours do not, I suggest getting a 20 to 21" 1600x1200
display, as it is 4:3 ratio and at worst the game could run
at a more traditional and common 1024 x768 or 800x600,
though of course since these are not the LCD's native
resolution the game will be less sharp, but it is far less
important on many games than on reading text at native
resolution.
Ahh, OK. So you can get non-widescreen LCDs bigger than 19", I should have
read further. Although it would have to be 21" minimum to make the upgrade
worthwhile for me. Also, my eyes probably wouldn't like 1600x1200 on a
monitor barely larger than this one.

I shall look further.
 
Ad

Advertisements

K

kony

Somewhere on teh interweb kony typed:

I too have some older games I play that don't do widescreen

I don't know if it's the limited model options that we get here in New
Zealand again but I'm finding it increasingly difficult to find new
non-widescreen LCD monitors. I have a 19", 1280 x 1024 monitor at the moment
and have been considering getting a larger one. However, after a web search
of the obvious local suppliers all I can find larger than 19" are
widescreen. Is this the same the world over?
It does seem that non-widescreen are becoming less and less
common, but in the US there are still quite a few 19"
1280x1024 models, and a few 20-21" 1600x1200 models, though
recently 22" widescreens have dropped in price so the
remaining 1600x1200 models cost more.

Fortunately, if you have a video card with a decent driver
(I prefer nVidia), there are options for just leaving black
bars on the sides when a game needs a non-widescreen
resolution so you still have a native-display, per-pixel
accurancy.



I thought I'd max the credit
card (again) and get myself a 21" non-widescreen monitor for Xmas, then I
could pass on my (perfectly good) 19" as a Xmas present to someone else.
If you can find a 1600x1200 res. monitor, now would be a
good time to buy it, as they may be harder and harder to
find in the future. I just don't know anything about your
market, what is available. If the cost is too high, a 22"
that you only enjoy for non-gaming could also make sense,
just running the games at 1280x1024... which seems a shame,
but gaming is already pretty expensive, only you can decide
how much to pay for that hobby.



Ahh, OK. So you can get non-widescreen LCDs bigger than 19", I should have
read further. Although it would have to be 21" minimum to make the upgrade
worthwhile for me. Also, my eyes probably wouldn't like 1600x1200 on a
monitor barely larger than this one.

I shall look further.
I have mixed feeling about it. I, unlike some, feel larger
pixel pitch is a good thing, that if the text is too small
it is harder to use, but I can't stand putting a monitor
very close, I am always over 2 feet away from mine. On the
other hand if I were sitting less than 2 feet away, larger
pixels might seem a bit crude and blocky and I would rather
a 1600x1200 res. even if the exact same size display. I
suppose you have to consider your unique uses and see a few
in a store to decide.

Being someone who would rather have multiple displays than
spend a lot on one very large display, I find (at least in
the US, where prices seem lower and discounts are common), I
find the best bang for the buck today to be a 22" 1680x1050,
unless someone is a professional photographer who will then
need a professional quality 8 bit display which tends to
not be available in 22" size... all the 22" I've seen
recently are 6 bit and personally I think some of the better
6 bit look quite good, but some people are pickier than
others. Since I sit further away from mine than many
people, at any given price I would take size over absolute
color accuracy, so long as it isn't a horrible result.

Speaking of horrible results, I find many people seem to
have not compared many monitors, as I have (for example) a
Hanns-G monitor that I find is pretty bad at contrast and
color accuracy, but many people have said they think it's
good. I can't complain as I got it at an exceptional
discount but when I see people saying it's good I can't
imaging what they are comparing it to, as it looks worse
than an average older tech monitor, just larger which is the
opposite of claiming good color and contrast. Putting it
side-by-side with a median quality monitor that much is
obvious and yet people still say it's good, instead of
saying it's good that it's cheap.

I love cheap parts that serve the purpose, but sometimes
it's better to be frank about where the drawbacks are, why
it costs less.
 
K

kony

You're right about my G400 supporting higher resolutions, including
1600x1200. Seems Windows only shows up to 1280x1024 because that's the
max that my monitor supports.

But I wonder if 1600x1200 on a 20" monitor might seem too small. At work
I use a 24" widescreen monitor, and I'll have to double check, but I think
that the resolution is set to 1920x1200, which seems just right.

It will be smaller, but many things (like text) have size
settings in (windows?).

I suggest you go to a store and look at one in that
resolution to decide if it is suitable. Any size is a
tradeoff, if there were only one ideal monitor there
wouldn't be so many choices.
 
M

~misfit~

Somewhere on teh interweb kony typed:
It does seem that non-widescreen are becoming less and less
common, but in the US there are still quite a few 19"
1280x1024 models, and a few 20-21" 1600x1200 models, though
recently 22" widescreens have dropped in price so the
remaining 1600x1200 models cost more.
That is what I'm seeing here. I managed to find a couple of non-widescreen
monitors marginally larger than my 19" but they're far dearer than the
widescreen options. It's just not worth if for the few extra pixels.
Fortunately, if you have a video card with a decent driver
(I prefer nVidia), there are options for just leaving black
bars on the sides when a game needs a non-widescreen
resolution so you still have a native-display, per-pixel
accurancy.
Ahh, OK, I didn't know that. I used nVidia too. A 7800GT in this machine and
2 x ti4200, a ti4400, an FX5600 and a couple GF2 MX400s in various machines.
The only ATI I have is a 9000 Pro which I got cheap second-hand and used
mainly for a media centre as the TV out is good.
If you can find a 1600x1200 res. monitor, now would be a
good time to buy it, as they may be harder and harder to
find in the future.
Sadly, the only ones I can find aren't cheap at all, especially in
comparison with the widescreen counterparts. From what I've seen, they've
never come down in price, never hit "mainstream". However, now it seems that
22" and 24" widescreens are going mainstream.
I just don't know anything about your
market, what is available. If the cost is too high, a 22"
that you only enjoy for non-gaming could also make sense,
just running the games at 1280x1024... which seems a shame,
but gaming is already pretty expensive, only you can decide
how much to pay for that hobby.
Most of the games I play are 5 years old or more. (LOL, in fact all of
them). Some will run at 1024x768 but my favourite runs at 800x600 max. I
don't pay much for that hobby. said:
I have mixed feeling about it. I, unlike some, feel larger
pixel pitch is a good thing, that if the text is too small
it is harder to use, but I can't stand putting a monitor
very close, I am always over 2 feet away from mine.
It seems we have similar preferences and usage patterns.
On the
other hand if I were sitting less than 2 feet away, larger
pixels might seem a bit crude and blocky and I would rather
a 1600x1200 res. even if the exact same size display. I
suppose you have to consider your unique uses and see a few
in a store to decide.
The only display I'd have closer than 2 feet would be a laptop screen.
Being someone who would rather have multiple displays than
spend a lot on one very large display, I find (at least in
the US, where prices seem lower and discounts are common), I
find the best bang for the buck today to be a 22" 1680x1050,
unless someone is a professional photographer who will then
need a professional quality 8 bit display which tends to
not be available in 22" size... all the 22" I've seen
recently are 6 bit and personally I think some of the better
6 bit look quite good, but some people are pickier than
others. Since I sit further away from mine than many
people, at any given price I would take size over absolute
color accuracy, so long as it isn't a horrible result.

Speaking of horrible results, I find many people seem to
have not compared many monitors, as I have (for example) a
Hanns-G monitor that I find is pretty bad at contrast and
color accuracy, but many people have said they think it's
good. I can't complain as I got it at an exceptional
discount but when I see people saying it's good I can't
imaging what they are comparing it to, as it looks worse
than an average older tech monitor, just larger which is the
opposite of claiming good color and contrast. Putting it
side-by-side with a median quality monitor that much is
obvious and yet people still say it's good, instead of
saying it's good that it's cheap.

I love cheap parts that serve the purpose, but sometimes
it's better to be frank about where the drawbacks are, why
it costs less.
I couldn't agree more.

Thanks for the input Kony. I'll flag it and continue to use this monitor as
long as it's working well, only "upgrade" when I need to.
 
Ad

Advertisements

C

chrisv

John said:
Or a gamer. Wider FOV can make a big difference in games. Tunnel vision
has always been an issue with 4:3 screens with certain kinds of games.
Now we just need affordable video cards that can run the new games at
high rates on these ~2 MegaPixel widescreens.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads


Top