View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
taesookim
Joined: 22 Dec 2008 Location: bundang
|
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 4:30 am Post subject: does hd monitor really matter |
|
|
thinking about upgrading my lcd comp monitor. but should i? its a normal 22inch 5 mil/sec lcd with 1000:1 contrast ratio. ive been eyeing lg flatrons and samsung syncmasters with like 50,000:1 dfc. but will it really make that big of a difference lets say in gaming and watching movies? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
pkang0202

Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 4:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Whether its HD or not shouldn't matter with computer monitors. The things you should look at are:
Resolution (higher the better)
Contrast Ratio (higher the better)
Response Time (lower the better)
Dot Pitch (smaller the better)
My LCD monitor resolution is 1920x1080. Which happens to be the same resolution of 1080 HD. My monitor was NOT advertised as HD because its a computer monitor, not a TV.
I think if you are looking at monitors and they say "HD" on them, they are most likely LCD TV's and not computer monitors.
1,000:1 contrast is pretty bad. Get one with at least 40,000:1 |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
eamo

Joined: 08 Mar 2003 Location: Shepherd's Bush, 1964.
|
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 4:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Virtually all monitors made now over 24'' are HD 1080p.....
If you have a decent graphics card which can support high resolutions then, of course, it's better.
Isn't a bigger screen more desirable than a smaller screen? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
taesookim
Joined: 22 Dec 2008 Location: bundang
|
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 7:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
well ive been looking at monitors and they say full hd so i thought there was a difference. as for contrast ratio it will say 1000:1 and 10,000:1 dcr. been looking at tech forums on tomshardware and wiki but i still dont understand the diff as for the graphix card its the fx radeon hd 4850 so im pretty sure thats strong enough. so im guessing all signs point to yes get a better monitor? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
pkang0202

Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 8:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
taesookim wrote: |
well ive been looking at monitors and they say full hd so i thought there was a difference. as for contrast ratio it will say 1000:1 and 10,000:1 dcr. been looking at tech forums on tomshardware and wiki but i still dont understand the diff as for the graphix card its the fx radeon hd 4850 so im pretty sure thats strong enough. so im guessing all signs point to yes get a better monitor? |
Get a 24" minimum. You will not be disappointed. I went from a 19" to a 24" and I have no idea how I managed to get by on a 19" screen, after using s 24". And you know what? Even though I got a 24", I wish I had gotten a bigger one. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
swigs

Joined: 20 Apr 2008
|
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 9:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
While contrast ratio is important, I would say a ratio of 1:10,000 is fine for more than most people. But the higher the ratio, the better your blacks and whites will look. But for TV this won't matter much, but for blu rays or video games you probably would be able to tell a subtle difference if you know what to look for.
And I agree with Pkang about 24'' being the new standard. You can get some pretty cheap Samsung 24'' TV/Monitor hybrids.
I'm currently in America and using the 24'' Samsung T240HD, and love it. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
eamo

Joined: 08 Mar 2003 Location: Shepherd's Bush, 1964.
|
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm using an LG 27'' monitor and I wish it were a couple of inches bigger! (that's what she said). |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
tatertot

Joined: 21 Oct 2008
|
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In my opinion, resolution is much more important than size. I would rather have a 24" 1920x1200 monitor than a 27" 1920x1200 monitor. Of course, I would much rather have a 30" 2560x1600 monitor than either of those! It's too bad those are so expensive! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
swigs

Joined: 20 Apr 2008
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|