Need advice for a new monitor
 

So, the last time I bought a monitor it was a CRT. The times sure have changed.

I'm looking at getting a new LCD monitor and would like to understand the specs more, as well as gather any suggestions you might have.

Here's what I know:

• I want widescreen
• I want a native resolution of 1920x1200
• I don't care too much about extra bells and whistles: picture quality is most important, extra features are secondary
• Aside for general computer usage, I will also be watching movies and playing videogames

With all that in mind, here are some questions I have:

• What is a good brightness?
• What is a good contrast ratio?
• What is a good response time?

One model that I've heard is good is the Dell UltraSharp 2407 WFP-HC Any thoughts on this one? Is the 6ms response time too slow for gaming and movies? (I realize these are probably stupid questions, but I know very little about LCD monitors)

Setting aside the Dell, are there any other model suggestions? Finding something I can get off of Newegg would be helpful as well.

Some oddball remarks about LCDs:

Dell LCDs are the best in the business for general usage from what I've seen. Even the ones with ghosting look great as long as you don't play games on them.

Most LCDs don't look as good as CRTs, particularly because of the darkness of darks. The Dells I've worked with don't have this problem, but most of the others I've seen do.

If you're very picky about colors, brightness, darkness, etc. you will be annoyed at LCDs at first unless you get one of the Dells I mentioned previously.

My Hanns-G has 5 star rating at NewEgg after like 900 reviews and I'm not too fond of it. The darks are washed out and if you don't look straight at it the blacks appear yellowish and faded. There is ZERO ghosting in videogames with its 5ms response time.

I guess in the end I would recommend a Dell with a 5ms response time or lower with the absolute highest contrast ratio available so the darks look good. Mine has a 700ms contrast ratio and it is <B>not</B> good enough. Mine has a 300 cd/m2 brightness and it is fine.

I know I'm sucking Dell's dick here but they really are heads and tails above any other LCD I've used. You can't tell a difference between a Dell LCD and a CRT. You CAN tell a difference between most LCDs and CRTs (CRTs look better in general).

Also, another thing to consider: if you do buy a massive LCD like that, your videocard will have to be a powerhouse to support it in games if you want to run at its native resolution.

My CRT doesn't have as many colors as the LCD I use at work. It says "millions" for both, but I tried to make a Richard Dawkins christmas ornament for another thread here at home on my CRT which turned out fine... until I saw it at work on the LCD. I was missing grays. I am missing grays right now, on my CRT.

I found while shopping that Samsung and Sony have gorgeous monitors that are capable of handling brights and darks with the best of them.

I like this one. 24" glossy widescreen, 1920x1200 res, 16.7m colors (pretty standard), 300 cd/m2 brightness (very good), 1000:1 contrast ratio (which is 3000:1 dynamic, very good), 5 ms response time (FAST), and it's nice to look at.

I've heard similar things about Dell (that they make some of the best LCD monitors).

I do like the picture on CRTs more....I suppose I could just re-buy my old model when it comes back in stock. What appeals to me about the LCD is that it takes up less desk space for an even larger display area, that I can get it in widescreen, and that I can have increased screen real estate with 1920x1200 (as opposed to 1600x1200). The fact a good CRT typically has a better picture is exactly why I'm concerned about making the right decision if I get an LCD.

I'm not too worried about the resolution when it comes to games though...I have an Nvidia 7950GT OC and, sometime in the future, I'll probably get a second one to hook up with SLI.

My computer is the main place I watch TV and movies though, which is also why I'm concerned about video playback quality (and why it'd be nice to have a 24" monitor as opposed to a 19" CRT).

Interesting. Lasereth: anything about this monitor that sticks out to you? I mean, looking at the specs it looks pretty good to me, but I've already established that I don't really know what I'm talking about when it comes to LCDs. It'd be nice to have a couple different opinions on the same monitor. One thing I notice reading the reviews is that it apparently doesn't have a very good viewing angle...what's a good stat to look for on that? If 160°(H) / 160°(V) isn't good, what is?

And what's the deal with the whole dynamic contrast ratio thing? What does that mean?

The viewing angle is as follows. Let's say that you want a new LCD television, but you have seating at the far right and left of the screen. The viewing angle is how far to the right or left (or top of bottom, though that's not usually a concern) of the screen you can see the picture. 160 is the degrees in h (horizontal) and v (vertical) that you can still see the picture. Considering one is usually planted at 90 degrees when it comes to a computer... well you can tell us how often you compute from the side. Dynamic contrast is for especially dark screen content. When a dark image needs to be displayed a backlight will turn off to decrease the brightness, and the LCD will compensate for other areas of the screen that need to remain bright.

I'll give the short answer: I have no fucking idea. :thumbsup: All I know about LCDs is that Dells look the best from what I've seen. I know nothing about the viewing angle stuff besides that mine looks like ass from any angle except straight-on, and the Dells at work look beautiful at any angle.

Lasereth is master of video cards, but I have a decent amount (only as a consumer) of experience with lcds. I shopped for about 8 months.

I figured that's what the numbers meant for viewing angle, but thanks for verifying anyway. What I meant is that in the reviews for the monitor you linked, it seems that some people are very unhappy even with that 160 degree viewing angle...seems like the most common complaint for that monitor in fact. So, I guess what I mean to ask is where does 160 degrees fall on the viewing angle spectrum? Is that standard? Low? High? If people are unhappy with that, I get the impression there must be a better viewing angle to look for out there.

You're right that typically a monitor is viewed from about 90 degrees, but sometimes when I'm watching a show on my computer I'll sit back on my bed, in which case I'm viewing from a bit of an angle (I think I'd fall into that 160 degrees, but I'm not positive).

Typically one would want 178 for a tv and somewhere in the 160s-170s for computer, because a computer monitor generally is at exactly 90 degrees to the user. TV LCDs have to work for a whole room.

Will you be sitting in front of your monitor basically all the time? Or do you have chairs that are kinda off to the side that might be used? If the former, then 160 is fine. If the latter, I can find something else.
http://www.220-electronics.com/plasma/ViewingAngle.jpg
The largest viewing angle shown above is 160 degrees (ignore the "LCD, rear, plasma" thing).

OK, something with a larger viewing area would probably be better then. Typically, if I'm watching something on the computer it's with onodrim or someone else as well, in which case they may be sitting a little more off to the side. Looking at the diagram, 160 degrees is probably fine, but it'd be good to look into something with a larger viewing area to be safe.

Viewing angles for LCDs depend on the panel type. Here's a nice list that explains the difference between the different panel types. In general, cheaper LCDs use TN panels, and the more expensive ones use S-PVA. S-PVA have better colors and wider viewing angles but slower response times.

Samsung and Dell are my favorite LCDs. Aesthetically, I like the look of Dells, but I prefer the color reproduction of Samsung displays. Please note, that this is just a personal preference. Both are great.

willravel linked to the Samsung 245BW which is a TN panel. That'd explain the cheaper price and complaints about viewing angles. Keep in mind that viewing angles refer to both horizontal and vertical directions.

The Dell UltraSharp 2407 WFP-HC is a S-PVA panel, so it costs a couple hundred dollars more. You get better colors and a wider viewing angle. It also has a stand that allows you to pivot between portrait/landscape, which is convenient if you write documents a lot. As far as movies and video games are concerned, they should look fine, but they're not going to look as good as they would on an HDTV.

Personally, I have a Samsung 244t which is a S-PVA panel, and I don't have an issues with viewing angles. Games are awesome on a 24 inch screen. I also have a hd tv tuner, so I can watch HD shows on my computer. It looks amazing as well, but it's not as jaw dropping as the picture you'd get if you spent over a grand on an HDTV.

Hope that helps.

I just upgraded to a Sceptre "elcheapo" LCD widescreen and have been happy with it. I'm not a gamer and sometimes the wide screen seems a little odd. Read the reviews and have 1 dead pixel. I would still recommend it for an inexpensive upgrade.

Every board I am on I have read the same answer to this question..Samsung or Dell. I have a Samsung @ work, and @ home. We also have a Dell and a few other brands @ work. The Dell is the only monitor other than the Samsung that looks decent. The rest literally hurt my eyes after a few minutes.

Captain Obvious should have opened with "You are currently looking for a computer monitor. For your computer. To be viewed!"