Re: Monitors

Date	2012-06-03 23:10 +0200
From	David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no>
Newsgroups	comp.os.linux.misc
Subject	Re: Monitors
References	(3 earlier) <4fc8f945$0$78577$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net> <jqb3c0$iut$1@dont-email.me> <icmx4m26fv.fsf@home.home> <E9OdnYRqU9m6BVbSnZ2dnUVZ7q-dnZ2d@lyse.net> <iczk8kw9yk.fsf@home.home>
Message-ID	<1NGdnX0PD7JWT1bSnZ2dnUVZ8rGdnZ2d@lyse.net> (permalink)

Show all headers | View raw

On 03/06/12 20:01, Dan Espen wrote:
> David Brown<david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no>  writes:
>
>> On 01/06/12 21:11, Dan Espen wrote:
>>> Patrick<Patrick@none.com>   writes:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 17:17:57 +0000, Stan Bischof wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> notbob<notbob@nothome.com>   wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The best recommendation is to go to a real live shop where you can try
>>>>>>> them out and look at the pictures.......
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yep.  Nothing like a plain ol' viewing test to see what's what.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I haven't been in some time, but I know plasma TVs were once atrocious.
>>>>>>    Extremely limited viewing cone.  This has probably changed.  I'd stick
>>>>>> with LCD technology.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> for the moment perhaps, but if you really want good viewing angles you
>>>>> want an LED screen - and I don't mean the so-called "led" screens that
>>>>> are really just an led backlight for an LCD.
>>>>>
>>>>> LED screens can approach 180 deg viewing angle- far more than plasma or
>>>>> LCD
>>>>>
>>>>> Stan
>>>>
>>>> I think the next screen I buy I'll look for a higher refresh rate.
>>>> Perhaps 80hz or even 100hz instead of the normal 60hz.
>>>> Hard to find but I'm sure they exist.
>>>
>>> I strongly recommend staying away from CRTs.
>>> For computer work an LCD beats a CRT to death.
>>>
>>
>> It's hard to get at all CRTs now - they are not even common for
>> second-hand, as they have so low re-sale value, and are so big and
>> heavy.  Baring a very few niche areas, no one would buy a CRT now.
>> The majority are LCD screens, with a few plasma, OLED, etc.
>>
>>> As far as "refresh rate" on an LCD:
>>>
>>>     The closest  equivalent to  a refresh  rate on an  LCD monitor  is its
>>>     frame rate, which is often locked  at 60 frame/s.
>>
>> There are only two frame rates realistically available for LCD
>> monitors. The huge majority at 60 frames per second, while there are a
>> few at 120 frames per second aimed specifically at 3D, so that each
>> eye gets 60 frames per second.
>>
>> As you say, there is /no/ flicker on LCDs (or other flatscreen
>> technologies).  It doesn't matter what the frame rate is, because they
>> are not being turned on and off at that rate, merely updated at that
>> rate.  And since 60 frames per second is much faster than the eye can
>> see movement, there is no point in going any faster.
>>
>> What /does/ vary between screens is the response time - how fast a
>> pixel can change from fully on to fully off.  Any modern screen is
>> going to be good enough for most uses, including video, but some that
>> are designed for the highest quality static pictures (such as IPS
>> screens) are poor at very fast video games.
>>
>>>
>>> For an LCD you shop for resolution and size.
>>> I'm currently at 20.5 inches and 1600x1200.
>>> (DELL).
>>>
>>> I wouldn't mind 24 inches or even 30 but anything less than
>>> the vertical 1200 is out of the question.
>>>
>>
>> 1600x1200 are getting rare and expensive.  The majority of screens use
>> full HD resolution - 1920 x 1080.  I agree that having 1200 pixels
>> vertically is much nicer than 1080 for a computer - but on my brief
>> check of prices, the cheapest 1600 x 1200 I found is almost 50% more
>> expensive than the cheapest 1920 x 1200 - and over three times the
>> price of the cheapest 1920 x 1080.
>>
>> If you've got the money, there is a lot to be said for 2560x1440 - you
>> get a nice big monitor, and the price is getting quite
>> reasonable. Remember that a good monitor will last longer than your
>> computer, and make a bigger difference to your working environment
>> than the speed of the processor or graphics card.
>
> Yes I agree with everything you've said.
>
> Maybe because I've had CRTs and now LCDs with 1200 vertical pixels so long
> I'm slightly prejudiced.  But I would not trade my 20.5 1600x1200 for
> 30 inches of 1920x1080.  I'd consider that a loss of 120 pixels with
> the horizontal gain being no real advantage.
>

Once you've got used to 1920 width, the horizontal gain /is/ a real 
advantage.  But I'd hate to lose the 120 vertical pixels - at my office, 
1920 x 1200 is the standard size.  I do have one 1920 x 1080, and it's 
missing vertical resolution bugs me.

At home I have a Dell U2711, with 2560 x 1440, which is /very/ nice.

> You're right that the prices really start to go up at the higher
> resolutions but for me, the monitor is the most important part of
> the whole machine.
>

You've misread me a little.  Prices are going /up/ for 1600 x 1200 - but 
they are going /down/ for 1920 x 1200 (and 1920 x 1080 are very cheap) 
and 2560 x 1440.

In other words, for computing use (rather than just watching TV on your 
computer), 1920 x 1200 is the spot to aim for, unless you lack the 
physical space for the width.  You get more horizontal pixels, the same 
vertical resolution, and a lower price.  But if you can afford it, 
2560x1440 is a worthwhile investment for serious use.

Thread

Monitors Steve <tinker123@gmail.com> - 2012-05-20 05:52 -0700
  Re: Monitors David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2012-05-20 17:29 +0200
    Re: Monitors notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2012-05-20 15:35 +0000
      Re: Monitors Stan Bischof <stan@worldbadminton.com> - 2012-06-01 17:17 +0000
        Re: Monitors Patrick <Patrick@none.com> - 2012-06-01 18:58 +0000
          Re: Monitors Stan Bischof <stan@worldbadminton.com> - 2012-06-01 19:09 +0000
            Re: Monitors Patrick <0001patrick@gmail.com> - 2012-06-01 23:35 +0000
            Re: Monitors Patrick <0001patrick@gmail.com> - 2012-06-01 23:47 +0000
          Re: Monitors Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2012-06-01 15:11 -0400
            Re: Monitors David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2012-06-03 19:00 +0200
              Re: Monitors Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2012-06-03 14:01 -0400
                Re: Monitors David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2012-06-03 23:10 +0200
                Re: Monitors Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2012-06-03 19:06 -0400
        Re: Monitors Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2012-06-02 04:51 +0000
          Re: Monitors unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-06-02 05:36 +0000
          Re: Monitors The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-06-02 10:41 +0100
          Re: Monitors Stan Bischof <stan@worldbadminton.com> - 2012-06-04 14:27 +0000
            Re: Monitors Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2012-06-04 17:23 +0200
              Re: Monitors Stan Bischof <stan@worldbadminton.com> - 2012-06-04 15:31 +0000
                Re: Monitors David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-06-05 09:14 +0200
                Re: Monitors unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-06-05 15:46 +0000
              Re: Monitors J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2012-06-04 15:41 +0000
                Re: Monitors Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2012-06-04 18:27 +0200
                Re: Monitors notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2012-06-04 17:00 +0000
                Re: Monitors Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2012-06-04 14:14 -0400
                Re: Monitors unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-06-04 18:17 +0000
                Re: Monitors notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2012-06-04 18:58 +0000
                Re: Monitors Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2012-06-04 16:33 -0400
                Re: Monitors unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-06-04 21:17 +0000
                Re: Monitors Stan Bischof <stan@worldbadminton.com> - 2012-06-04 20:52 +0000
        Re: Monitors notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2012-06-02 12:36 +0000
          Re: Monitors TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2012-06-02 11:59 -0400
            Re: Monitors notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2012-06-02 17:34 +0000
              Re: Monitors TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2012-06-02 15:40 -0400
              Re: Monitors The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-06-02 23:45 +0100
                Re: Monitors Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2012-06-03 00:46 +0200
                Re: Monitors The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-06-02 23:52 +0100
                Re: Monitors Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2012-06-03 00:54 +0200
                Re: Monitors The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-06-03 00:08 +0100
                Re: Monitors notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2012-06-03 02:52 +0000
                Re: Monitors The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-06-03 13:08 +0100
                Re: Monitors notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2012-06-03 13:10 +0000
                Re: Monitors Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2012-06-03 09:57 -0400
                Re: Monitors notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2012-06-03 14:25 +0000
                Re: Monitors Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2012-06-03 10:05 +0200
                Re: Monitors TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2012-06-03 08:00 -0400
                Re: Monitors unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-06-03 18:16 +0000
    Re: Monitors TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2012-05-24 11:10 -0400
      Re: Monitors David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2012-05-24 19:32 +0200
        Re: Monitors TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2012-05-25 20:09 -0400
          Re: Monitors J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2012-05-26 09:35 +0000
            Re: Monitors TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2012-05-26 08:07 -0400
              Re: Monitors David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2012-05-26 19:49 +0200
            Re: Monitors Allodoxaphobia <knock_yourself_out@example.net> - 2012-05-26 16:42 +0000
  Re: Monitors notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2012-05-26 00:32 +0000

csiph-web