| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 94215 | 2008-10-20 04:48:00 | 24" LCD resolution | Nomad (952) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 713340 | 2008-10-20 04:48:00 | Hi, I am just looking around, the wide screen 24" with resolution of 1960x1080, are these high enough for say writing letters? The reason I ask is that with a 15" LCD many people use 1280x1024. Would the words be not sharp or while photo editing with say Photoshop. Thanks. |
Nomad (952) | ||
| 713341 | 2008-10-20 06:22:00 | A 22" screen should do espesially when upgrading from a 15" otherwise it will seem too big for you. A samsung SyncMaster 226BW is very good. I have one myself and typing documents couldnt look better. You can zoom up to 200% in Microsoft Word 2007. Very good contrast ratio of 3000:1 and 2ms response time. Many preset options for brightness/contrast to suit every type need. |
almightynugget (13536) | ||
| 713342 | 2008-10-20 08:06:00 | I'm also using it for photography. Quite into it with RAW files, Photoshop, Lightroom etc .. film scanning. The reso is 1920x1200 wide screen. As the ms response rate. What should I aim for. I had a look at Dell and they have 5 and 6. I think a v expensive I cannot afford $6,000 Eizo with the larger color gamut, but they are 6ms. What should I look for? Edit. Oh. I don't have a 15" LCD that's was just a figure of speech. We at the mo have a 17" CRT but it's not my computer, I am using a 12" laptop which runs at 1024x768 bought it in 2000. Just found out some of them do 2560x1600 ..... |
Nomad (952) | ||
| 713343 | 2008-10-20 18:45:00 | If you do a lot of work on photos, then don't get a 22" screen as they pretty much all contain TN panels which are rubbish for accurately reproducing colours. Yes, they can be tweaked to produce a good display but you are much better off with either a 20" or 24" screen with a PVA or IPS panel in them. If you're not gaming you don't need a super fast response time like 2ms. The Dell Ultrasharps are good. I have a 20" with S-IPS panel and it looks great. Check the forums on DPReview (http://www.dpreview.com/) as there are people asking what monitor to use all the time. |
autechre (266) | ||
| 713344 | 2008-10-20 20:02:00 | How important is colour accuracy to you? If being able to display 16.7m colours is a requirement, you should get either a PVA or IPS panel as autechre said. You can check which panel a certain screen has here: www.tftcentral.co.uk TN: Lowest cost, worst viewing angles and colour reproduction, low input lag. Apparently best for fast paced gaming, worst for image editing and professsional work where colour accuracy is important. TN panels can only display 262k colours natively and use dithering to display 16.7m. *VA (MVA, PVA, S-PVA): Middle of the road, better viewing angles and colour reproduction, typically highest input lag (as high as 64ms!). Typically best black levels and contrast. Can display 16.7m colours but unfortunately (or fortunately if you're a design professional) most newer panels of this type are wide gamut, meaning sRGB images are oversaturated in non colour managed applications. Can suffer from slight horizontal contrast shift (like TN's vertical contrast shift, but not as obvious). My pick: Dell 2408wfp for ~$799 when they have their specials IPS (S-IPS, H-IPS): Most expensive technology, viewing angles and colour reproduction almost as good as (or even better than) that of a CRT, medium input lag (between 20-40ms). Almost all are wide gamut (which is a disadvantage, or an advantage depending on how you look at it). No contrast shift, but on non NEC screens (NEC screens have what is called an ATW polariser), can suffer from a slight washed out look when viewed from extreme horizontal angles. My pick: HP lp2475w for ~$999 depending on where you get it. It is by far the best monitor for the price in NZ; no monitor cheaper has better quality than this. All panel types have similar response times so ghosting is not really a problem anymore. Although some panels use overdrive, so you get a 'negative' ghosting effect, depending on the background eg on the TN (viewsonic 22") I'm using now, there is a slight ghosting trail, which isn't noticable on my IPS screen. So in this instance, TN has worse ghosting than IPS, even though the TN has a "quicker" documented (5ms for TN, 6ms for IPS) response time. |
utopian201 (6245) | ||
| 713345 | 2008-10-20 20:15:00 | 24" with resolution of 1960x1080, The reason I ask is that with a 15" LCD many people use 1280x1024. Would the words be not sharp . It would be sharp. The higher the resolution the less blocky it looks. Have a read here: en.wikipedia.org However, the higher the resolution on an LCD monitor the smaller and squintier the text. |
pctek (84) | ||
| 713346 | 2008-10-20 20:18:00 | Hi, I am just looking around, the wide screen 24" with resolution of 1960x1080, are these high enough for say writing letters? The reason I ask is that with a 15" LCD many people use 1280x1024 . Would the words be not sharp or while photo editing with say Photoshop . Thanks . OMG, my eyes . . . . . !! I dont know anyone who runs 12 x 10 on a 15" LCD, native is 10 x 7 . . |
SolMiester (139) | ||
| 713347 | 2008-10-20 20:46:00 | OMG, my eyes.....!! I dont know anyone who runs 12 x 10 on a 15" LCD, native is 10 x 7.. Rather! :eek: I run 1280*1024 on my work 17", and that is too small, but I need the screen real estate. 1280*1024 on a 19" is more like it. :D |
wratterus (105) | ||
| 713348 | 2008-10-20 20:54:00 | Rather! :eek: I run 1280*1024 on my work 17", and that is too small, but I need the screen real estate. 1280*1024 on a 19" is more like it. :D Mmmm, yeah, I run 2560 x 1024 over 2 17" @ work.....really need the extra monitor..... |
SolMiester (139) | ||
| 1 | |||||