Prev: Windows XP CD will not recognize existing installation
Next: Upgrading Windows 98
From: muzician21 on 28 Dec 2009 23:11
The last monitor I bought is my MAG CRT monitor. It still works great
but getting another computer. Obviously things have changed in the
last few years. Everything is widescreen LCD now. What are some
considerations when looking for a monitor? What shortcomings am I
going to find with an $99 boxmart 20" unit over something else? Which
specs are marketing gimmicks and which really count?

Someone advised I should look at 1920x1200, not 1920x1080 but they
didn't elaborate why. Any input on this?

One of my gripes about LCD's is that they don't look consistent when
viewed from different angles. You pretty much have to be dead center
in front of them to get optimal/even brightness.

Primary usage will be some video stuff - so some kind of accuracy of
the image would be great, might do a little gaming but I'm not a big
game player.

Obviously looking to get a good bang/buck ratio. Under $200 would be
nice. Might go higher if there's some feature that absolutely makes a
major difference. Not too proud to go used/Ebay.

Any recommendations both of models/brands to look at and to avoid?

Thanks for all input.
From: Paul on 28 Dec 2009 23:54
muzician21 wrote:
> The last monitor I bought is my MAG CRT monitor. It still works great
> but getting another computer. Obviously things have changed in the
> last few years. Everything is widescreen LCD now. What are some
> considerations when looking for a monitor? What shortcomings am I
> going to find with an $99 boxmart 20" unit over something else? Which
> specs are marketing gimmicks and which really count?
>
> Someone advised I should look at 1920x1200, not 1920x1080 but they
> didn't elaborate why. Any input on this?
>
> One of my gripes about LCD's is that they don't look consistent when
> viewed from different angles. You pretty much have to be dead center
> in front of them to get optimal/even brightness.
>
> Primary usage will be some video stuff - so some kind of accuracy of
> the image would be great, might do a little gaming but I'm not a big
> game player.
>
> Obviously looking to get a good bang/buck ratio. Under $200 would be
> nice. Might go higher if there's some feature that absolutely makes a
> major difference. Not too proud to go used/Ebay.
>
> Any recommendations both of models/brands to look at and to avoid?
>
> Thanks for all input.

"they don't look consistent when viewed from different angles"

There is a way to fix that. There are different kinds of panels.
TN panels are inferior to something like S-IPS. You can look
at viewing angle specs, and buy a monitor which is "178/178".
That will give you a good viewing angle.

And if you buy a monitor where dynamic contrast can be turned off,
then you can use the monitor for Photoshop.

$200 will buy you a TN panel.

This is the cheapest panel I could find ($250) with a 178 degree viewing
angle, and it uses a "CPVA" panel. I've heard of PVA, so this
must be yet another variation. Note that it is hard to get
all the good specs in one monitor - you might get a good viewing
angle, but get less than a great gaming monitor. Read the reviews
for more comments like that.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductReview.aspx?Item=N82E16824001333

Here is a nice monitor in terms of "tick boxes". It has 178/178 viewing
angle. 1920x1200 resolution (may require dual link DVI to hit that
resolution, not sure). 6 millisecond gray to gray. It also has
30 bit color (if you can coax that out of your hardware). But it
also costs $1919...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824176106

Paul
From: Toolpackinmama on 29 Dec 2009 01:22
muzician21 wrote:

> The last monitor I bought is my MAG CRT monitor. It still works great
> but getting another computer. Obviously things have changed in the
> last few years. Everything is widescreen LCD now. What are some
> considerations when looking for a monitor?

I don't prefer the "widescreen" type. You can still get non-widescreen,
but for some reason they seem to be phasing them out.

Five years ago CRT was the way to go for image quality, AND they were
less expensive. That has changed. LCDs are much better than they used
to be. The prices have dropped dramatically in the last couple of
years, too. Quality varies, but most LCDs available now are at least
equal to a good CRT for image quality. The price is now equivalent, too.

My only advice is to shop locally. Get a look at what you are buying
before you pay for it. If you buy from your local store, you can save
the cost of shipping, and if you must return it for an exchange it's easier.
From: Brian on 29 Dec 2009 08:36
muzician21 <muzician21(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

>The last monitor I bought is my MAG CRT monitor. It still works great
>but getting another computer. Obviously things have changed in the
>last few years. Everything is widescreen LCD now. What are some
>considerations when looking for a monitor? What shortcomings am I
>going to find with an $99 boxmart 20" unit over something else? Which
>specs are marketing gimmicks and which really count?
>
>Someone advised I should look at 1920x1200, not 1920x1080 but they
>didn't elaborate why. Any input on this?
>
>One of my gripes about LCD's is that they don't look consistent when
>viewed from different angles. You pretty much have to be dead center
>in front of them to get optimal/even brightness.
>
>Primary usage will be some video stuff - so some kind of accuracy of
>the image would be great, might do a little gaming but I'm not a big
>game player.
>
>Obviously looking to get a good bang/buck ratio. Under $200 would be
>nice. Might go higher if there's some feature that absolutely makes a
>major difference. Not too proud to go used/Ebay.
>
>Any recommendations both of models/brands to look at and to avoid?
>
>Thanks for all input.

Monitors are starting to come with a HDMI connections for HD video, so
you can connect a plystation 3 or DVD player to your monitor and watch
DVD movies in full 1920 x 1080 or play games. I find it useful to have
a monitor that has speakers built-in, the sound is not that great but
it's useful for speech and sound effects.
I wanted to have more viewable room for video editing so I went from a
17inch LCD monitor to a 22 inch widescreen monitor and choose
ViewSonic which had a good price. I'm happy with it.
If your interested the model number is VX2260WM.

Regards Brian
From: David Ruether on 29 Dec 2009 10:27

"muzician21" <muzician21(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ea97995a-24ee-49e8-a801-7501b99af30a(a)m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...

> The last monitor I bought is my MAG CRT monitor. It still works great
> but getting another computer. Obviously things have changed in the
> last few years. Everything is widescreen LCD now. What are some
> considerations when looking for a monitor? What shortcomings am I
> going to find with an $99 boxmart 20" unit over something else? Which
> specs are marketing gimmicks and which really count?

The LCD quality (which is generally refresh rate vs. color quality) is
important, but for a reasonable price, you are not going to get the best
color quality available (and you don't need it for video editing), but you
can get a good compromise with an 6-8 ms refresh rate. Generally, the
dynamic range spec is worthless, but if you get a monitor with auto
dynamic range enhancement, make sure you can turn it off for monitoring.

> Someone advised I should look at 1920x1200, not 1920x1080 but they
> didn't elaborate why. Any input on this?

I advised this, since every bit of vertical "real estate" is valuable while
editing so you can have a half-sized HD preview window open at the
same time as 3+ video/audio tracks. If you don't get this and often work
with multiple tracks plus title tracks plus maybe extra audio tracks, you
will soon regret not going this way. BTW, three popular editors are
laid out on a 1920x1200 monitor (24") here --
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/video-editor-screens.htm. With a
sharp LCD, the often-tiny details in the program can be easily seen on
this size monitor.

> One of my gripes about LCD's is that they don't look consistent when
> viewed from different angles. You pretty much have to be dead center
> in front of them to get optimal/even brightness.

So - set it up at the correct left/right/up/down angle for best viewing...
There is a trade off between the LCD's superior sharpness and accurate
rectangularity and the CRT's superior color and image brightness evenness.
With a dual-head card (cheap, if the new computer doesn't come with one),
you can run either, or both monitors at the same time, if you want to.

> Primary usage will be some video stuff - so some kind of accuracy of
> the image would be great, might do a little gaming but I'm not a big
> game player.

So 1920x1200 at 4-8 ms refresh with a 24" would seem to be ideal,
but you may not be able to get the faster refresh along with the other two
AND good color for "cheaps"...

> Obviously looking to get a good bang/buck ratio. Under $200 would be
> nice. Might go higher if there's some feature that absolutely makes a
> major difference. Not too proud to go used/Ebay.

UGH! ;-) Go to newegg.com, amazon.com, b&hphotovideo.com, etc...

> Any recommendations both of models/brands to look at and to avoid?
>
> Thanks for all input.

I like the cheapest Acer. It has generally served me well, although others
are likely good, and many are under $250, with free shipping. I would skip
(the terrible) built-in speakers (any cheap stereo system would likely be far
better). You do not need to spend much to get a good monitor for video
editing that will also serve adequately for other purposes, even those with
conflicting preferences (I've used the Acer successfully, although not ideally,
for photo work, and a friend uses one for playing World of Warcraft and
it works well even though its refresh rate is only 8 ms - and for TV use, it
also has a sufficiently fast refresh rate...). For $5.000, you can buy a better
monitor, but..............;-)
--DR


 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Windows XP CD will not recognize existing installation
Next: Upgrading Windows 98