Thinking of buying a new Monitor.

[Cerr]

I'm probably going to be buying a new monitor soon.
Looking for one with 1920 x 1080 resolution and screen size between 21" - 24" .

What are the important specs to look for?

Which companies make good monitors and which ones should be avoided?

Here's two monitors I'm considering at the moment:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/LG-W2361V-23-inch-Monitor-50000/dp/B00261VAMI/

http://www.amazon.co.uk/LG-W2343T-inch-LCD-Monitor/dp/B001W22P94/

[viper37]

I had bad experiences with LG, but maybe I only got the cheap monitors.

What you need to look at:
brightness: 300 cd/m2 is absolute minimum.

Contrast ratio:  usually, the higher the better, but manufacturers seems to have weird ways of measuring this. Anyway, not below 1000:1 static constrat (forget about anything called "dynamic")

Response time:  <5ms.  the lower the better.  Best monitors will have 2ms response time.  This avoids ghosting during games.


The rest of the stuff you should look for:
- warranty.  Dead pixels are the ban of any monitor.  Some manufacturers won't take back a monitor that has only one defective pixel, they need more.  Check for this.
- USB ports on the monitors.  Could be nice.  I know it is for me.
- usefulness of features: I find speakers on monitors to be irrelevant.  Some have a webcam integrated on the monitor.  Avoid the bells&whistles is my advice.  Don't trust marketing hype about any kind of technology that supposedly delivers better colors when activated.  A monitor will either display perfect colors or it will not.  No technology can change that.


I have a Samsung widescreen and two Nec Multisync (4:3).  I love the Nec, hate the Samsung.  The NEC gives me great colors, the Samsung does not.

[grumbler]

You should also look at 1920 x 1200.  The 16:10 ratio is surprisingly superior to 16:9.  It is worth paying 10% extra for.

[DGuller]

What's the advantage of the 16:10 aspect ratio?  Wouldn't it just complicate your life due to having non-standard ratio?

[grumbler]

What's the advantage of the 16:10 aspect ratio?  Wouldn't it just complicate your life due to having non-standard ratio?

16:10 is about 11% larger in the Y axis, making for a bigger picture.  Pretty much very game, application, and web site I have used supports it.

When playing movies, a black bar appears at the top and bottom, as the movies don't support that ratio.  That's about all that doesn't, as 16:10 is a "standard" aspect ratio for computers (if not TV).

[derspiess]

I will probably go for 16:9 for my next monitor, since I do watch a decent bit of TV & movies on my main PC.  I guess the ideal setup for me would be a 16:10 monitor to run my desktop, apps, etc. on and a 16:9 monitor for watching TV & movies. 

[Cerr]

Thanks guys for the information so far.

Has anyone else had bad experiences with LG and Samsung?
Those two seem to be the most common manufacturers from what I've seen.

Yeah I will consider 1920 x 1200 screens (I have a laptop with 16:10, which I like for the extra bit of height) but it doesn't seem like many monitors below 25 inches are available with that resolution.

[DGuller]

16:10 is about 11% larger in the Y axis, making for a bigger picture.  Pretty much very game, application, and web site I have used supports it.

It's only about 8% larger in the Y axis, and 3% smaller in the X axis.  You have 5% more area in total, but is it really that important?  I would think that in the future, given closer integration between TV stuff and computer stuff, one common standard would be preferred. 

Games may support many different aspect ratios, but they may still support only one of those natively.  Going forward, the default ratio to shoot for has to be 16:9, given how most big games are targeted for consoles with HDTVs first and foremost.

[grumbler]

It's only about 8% larger in the Y axis, and 3% smaller in the X axis.  You have 5% more area in total, but is it really that important?   

I have no idea what you are talking about.  An X axis setting of 1920 pixels in 1920 x 1200 is exactly the same number of pixels as the 1920 pixels in 1920 x 1080.  Don't know how you can conclude from that that 1920 is 3% less than 1920. 

I would think that in the future, given closer integration between TV stuff and computer stuff, one common standard would be preferred. 

Well, yes, it would be better if everything was 16;10, but that isn't likely to happen.  In the meantime, there is no reason to settle for 16:9 when 16:10 gives you everything 16:9 does, and more.

Games may support many different aspect ratios, but they may still support only one of those natively.  Going forward, the default ratio to shoot for has to be 16:9, given how most big games are targeted for consoles with HDTVs first and foremost.

Monitors have native resolutions.  Applications do not.  There is no additional effort involved in having an application resolve at 16:10 than there is at 16:9.

[grumbler]

Yeah I will consider 1920 x 1200 screens (I have a laptop with 16:10, which I like for the extra bit of height) but it doesn't seem like many monitors below 25 inches are available with that resolution.

I didn't look at that, but that is useful info to know.

In a way, it is a pity, though, as the extra height would be most useful in smaller screens!

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

Thanks guys for the information so far.

Has anyone else had bad experiences with LG and Samsung?
Those two seem to be the most common manufacturers from what I've seen.

Samsung is wonderful, though the market has come to realize this and the prices now reflect that.  I've bought four different models over the last 7 years and they all still work as well as the day I bought them (assuming the dazzling urbanites didn't break the one they stole).

[DGuller]

I have no idea what you are talking about.  An X axis setting of 1920 pixels in 1920 x 1200 is exactly the same number of pixels as the 1920 pixels in 1920 x 1080.  Don't know how you can conclude from that that 1920 is 3% less than 1920. 

I was talking about a physical size, not pixel count.  Given the same monitor size, the X axis is shorter by about 3% for 16:10 aspect ratio compared to 16:9 aspect ratio.

Monitors have native resolutions.  Applications do not.  There is no additional effort involved in having an application resolve at 16:10 than there is at 16:9.

I don't see how that's automatically true.  If some particular game has been designed to fit everything on the screen in the 16:9 horizontal:vertical ratio, then switching to 16:10 might require some workaround.  The game would either have to rearrange the display, stretch out and distort the picture, truncate the display somewhere, or leave black bars somewhere.

[Grey Fox]

Native resolutions are a scam.

[grumbler]

I was talking about a physical size, not pixel count.  Given the same monitor size, the X axis is shorter by about 3% for 16:10 aspect ratio compared to 16:9 aspect ratio.

You are not making any sense.  If you mean that, for a diagonal measurement of 24" the 16x10 display will be a bit smaller in the horizontal measurement, this isn't the case.  A nominal 24" 16x10 monitor will generally actually measure 24.1", while a nominal 24" 16x9 monitor will generally actually measure 23.6."

I don't see how that's automatically true.  If some particular game has been designed to fit everything on the screen in the 16:9 horizontal:vertical ratio, then switching to 16:10 might require some workaround.  The game would either have to rearrange the display, stretch out and distort the picture, truncate the display somewhere, or leave black bars somewhere.

I don't know to which game you are referring.  I have older games with resolutions limited to under the HD standard, and they have to run in windows (or be distorted) on any HD monitor.  No game which I have or have seen that supports 1920 horizontal pixels does not support 1200 vertical pixels.  Maybe if you could name the game, the rest of us could understand the issue you think you are raising.  But in any case, there is no such thing as a "native resolution" for software, even if you built games in a  college club.  There are only supported resolutions.

[grumbler]

Native resolutions are a scam.

  Got something against the Indians, whiteface?