Question about flat panel monitor contrast ratio.

[Dan]

A friend is buying a new Dell pc, and has a choice between a 17" flat panel
monitor with a contrast ratio of 400:1, and an upgraded one costing $80 more
with a contrast ratio of 600:1. She uses the pc mostly for word processing,
internet, etc., no intensive imaging or the like (she's 65 years old). Is
she likely to appreciate the image difference of these 2 monitors?

TIA

Dan

 

[Noozer]

A friend is buying a new Dell pc, and has a choice between a 17" flat panel
monitor with a contrast ratio of 400:1, and an upgraded one costing $80 more
with a contrast ratio of 600:1. She uses the pc mostly for word processing,
internet, etc., no intensive imaging or the like (she's 65 years old). Is
she likely to appreciate the image difference of these 2 monitors?

Personally, I'd spend the extra money.

One other consideration... what is the display lag? 25ms or more will cause
problems when scrolling, etc.

 

[shatara]

I would opt not to upgrade. Like you mentioned she is not going to use it
for any intense software programs such as adobe photoshop or any video
editing software. Save 80 bucks and go out on a nice dinner ;-)

 

[CBFalconer]

A friend is buying a new Dell pc, and has a choice between a 17" flat panel
monitor with a contrast ratio of 400:1, and an upgraded one costing $80 more
with a contrast ratio of 600:1. She uses the pc mostly for word processing,
internet, etc., no intensive imaging or the like (she's 65 years old). Is
she likely to appreciate the image difference of these 2 monitors?

I rather doubt such a _young_ woman will find a major difference.
But focus and display size are likely to have an effect.

 

[Wayne Morgan]

For the person you mention, I would be more worried about a different spec
on the monitor. What is the native resolution of each? There is a good
chance that someone that age won't want a very high resolution monitor
because everything will be too small for them at the higher resolution and
LCD displays don't look as good as they should if you run them at other than
their native resolution.

 

[Dan]

25ms will cause problems when scrolling?!?!!!?!?!?!?!???!?

No way. I hear that all the time with 25ms. I have one and run serveral
computers with times from 30ms+ , 25ms and 16ms (the newest one). Even the
worst one we have has no problems scolling. Sure 3D games ghost on the 30ms+
but even my 25ms does not ghost. Dispite many people telling me that it
will, it doesnt and never has. And yes, my comp is more than fast enough to
produce high frame rates.

 

[Dan]

Thanks for the replies, very helpful. The stated resolution of each is
1280x1024. I know I run my 17" crt at 1024x768, and *I* find 1280x1024
AWFULLY small. So you're saying then that flat panels are not as amenable
to operation at other than their spec'd resolution? What is the effect of
doing so? Would you say she'd be better of with a 17" CRT?

Thanks for the input!

Dan

 

[Dan]

A little confusing here, I'm the OP and a different "Dan" ;-)

The speed of each is 25ms. I thought this was sufficient except for gaming?
No?

Thanks for the continued replies,

Dan (the OP ;-)

 

[Dan]

25ms is more than suffcient for what you are using it for.

Dan (not the OP)

 

[shatara]

some is a little to geeky when it comes to monitors the normal person, im
guessin 99.9% of computer users, would not even notice a difference

 

[shatara]

i cant believe what im seeing here, ANY ****ING MONITOR WILL WORK, LOL

 

[Dan]

Yeah, that's mature. If my questions are putting you out, don't reply.

Dan

 

[kony]

Thanks for the replies, very helpful. The stated resolution of each is
1280x1024. I know I run my 17" crt at 1024x768, and *I* find 1280x1024
AWFULLY small. So you're saying then that flat panels are not as amenable
to operation at other than their spec'd resolution? What is the effect of
doing so? Would you say she'd be better of with a 17" CRT?

Keep in mind that a 17" LCD has a larger viewable area than your 17"
CRT. For sharp eyes 1280x1024 is fine, it is the "native resolution"
of a decent 17" LCD. For less sharp eyes, there's always increasing
the font sizes.

For the described uses there's little point to the upgraded monitor
unless it'll be in a bright room, but then again for the descibed uses
there's little point to buying a whole new system, rather than one
someone else is practically giving away, at least 1/4 the price.
Sometimes I can even make sense to buy the Dell system without any
extras at all, or the cheapest alternative possible, then buy things
(like the monitor) locally where you can preview it and potentially
get a better price.

 

[CBFalconer]

i cant believe what im seeing here, ANY ****ING MONITOR WILL WORK, LOL

You really should see someone about your coprolalia problem.

 

[notritenotteri]

A CRT is quite a bit cheaper these days and there's some damn good
ones available. I would seriously consider buying one locally unless
the supplier will pay packing and shipping costs both ways while its
under warranty. When it is out of warranty its a throw-away in my
opinion.
I have both crt and LCD and I prefer the LCd it has a smaller foot
print it eats less power its quieter and it doesn't heat the room in
the summer ( which isn't much of a consideration if you live in the
NE these days) I would look before you buy there is a perceived
difference in picture quality.

 

[shatara]

pathetic people, just pathetic, coprophilia huh? thats pretty good chuck. i
just love diving into a hot bowl of shit.

 

[Wayne Morgan]

Laptop CRTs seem worse about this than the desktop ones, but running at
other than the native resolution will sometimes cause things to look blocky.