Every photo in this thread looks like a really bad case of backlight bleed. It makes me wonder if all these monitors really are that bad or if it's a case of incorrect photography technique / camera settings. Do the photos match what you're seeing?
That's not always the case. My monitor has a wider gamut than sRGB in green shades only, and it enables the display of green colours that are much closer to pure green than what sRGB is capable of. Yes it is technically distorted, but it makes games and video content look subjectively much...
Crystal LED vs Plasma high end 3840x2160 TVs might be an interesting format war in a few years. I still think it's going to be too expensive for monitors though.
So Samsung cheaped out instead of using their own, superior panel technology. That's not a good sign...
24" 1920x1200 8-bit cPVA might be an interesting product...
The PA241W has 100% sRGB coverage whereas the P241W only has 96.7%. Whether that's worth an extra $250 will depend on what the monitor is used for.
Why is that odd? It doesn't surprise me at all that NEC wouldn't focus on lowering input lag with a monitor that is designed for professional...
Why do you think you have to choose?
Dell 2408WFP = True 8-bit colour with over 1100:1 static contrast ratio
Newer monitors aren't necessarily better...
Sorry for the necro, but I'd just like to point out that 10-bit colour doesn't do much if your source content isn't also 10-bit.
ps. Bluray movies are 8-bit.
I've thought about it some more and here's my revised list:
- 96Hz refresh
- 3840x2400 resolution
- Static contrast ratio of at least 5000:1 at 120 nit
- Less than one frame of input lag
I think I'm going to be waiting a while...
If your idea of PC gaming is to run games at 60+ FPS at high settings and with low input lag then 'upgrading' beyond 1080p or 1200p is going to make that goal much harder and more expensive.
Regarding image quality, if I had to choose between 1920x1200 high settings 4x MSAA and 2560x1600 medium...
I'm waiting for a 120Hz monitor with a 16:10 resolution of 2560x1600 or higher.
Not interested in spending money to go from 60Hz to 60Hz, not interested in 16:9, and not interested in a resolution that's the same or lower than what I have now (1920x1200).
Might want to take a look at the Samsung 2233RZ...
Yeah, I want a 120Hz 1200p monitor too. I'd like to check out 120Hz but I just can't bring myself to downgrade to 16:9.
I use a Dell 2408WFP (A01) and I'm very happy with it. VA panels are nice, and I'm fairly certain their input lag isn't anywhere near as bad as testing typically shows.
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1661348
Nope, huge monitors (at the same resolution) are for suckers. Much higher cost, higher power consumption, and no benefit whatsoever given that you can match viewing angle and perceived dot pitch by simply positioning a smaller monitor slightly closer to your eyes.
To achieve my preferred...
Does the monitor have 1:1 or 16:9 scaling options? It's something that the U2412M lacks, which means that console content would have to be stretched (distorted) to 16:10.
Size doesn't matter - you should buy a 30" monitor for its resolution and aspect ratio, not its size.
Decide what your comfortable maximum horizontal viewing angle is for a monitor and then adjust your viewing distance accordingly...
It's natural for you to feel this way given that you own a rather expensive 16:9 monitor.
Hopefully you won't simply disregard the views of people with 16:10 monitors though, because we have the ability to choose between 16:10 and 16:9, and most of the time we choose 16:10, despite the fact...
You're overthinking it.
If you assume that all monitors will be positioned such that the horizontal viewing angle is 40 degrees then PPI is irrelevant for comparing 1080p to 1200p or 1440p to 1600p.
A 16:10 monitor will always be better than a 16:9 monitor at the same horizontal resolution.
It's true that core game logic isn't operating on the same scale as what we see. Pixels are just the method by which we are able to observe what is happening in the game, and how the game is able to show us the results of our input.
Higher PPI and/or a more 'zoomed in' 16:10 image just gives us...
7.14285714285%
You (inadvertently) bring up a good point. The smallest viewport change in 3D games is one pixel, and one of the benefits of higher resolution monitors is that it allows for more precise viewport changes. With every element of a scene being made up of a larger number of pixels...
I'm not disputing this. What I am saying is I don't think there are many games where a wider horizontal view is more beneficial than a larger/more detailed scene. I do use a 1920x1200 monitor for gaming and I don't have an issue with black bars when I feel it's necessary, but the only game to...