New PC Monitor

This forum is for help with and discussion about your video hardware.

New PC Monitor

Postby Tiiscool » Fri Aug 03, 2007 2:25 am

Hello,

I would like to buy a new Monitor.

What kind of technical features are important ?
I need it for:
    for PC and PS2
    PAL and NTSC
    for Games like Tomb Raider, In the Groove
    or Dance Dance Revolution, Beatmania, (NTSC)
    so reaction time is important
    and of course for AMV!!!
    it shall also by my "TV", I watch always with my TV
    also for normal office programs

Price: 500 - 800 Euro

Best regards,
Ti
User avatar
Tiiscool
 
Joined: 14 Nov 2004
Location: Alstätte, Germany

Postby post-it » Fri Aug 03, 2007 4:45 am

.. are you good at math ?? .. most monitors today are only 1440 X 900 ( 16:10)

.. do you need it to be DPMI or VGA .. built for ATSC Reception ??? .. 5ms refresh ??

.. if a monitor is only as good as you can afford, then possibly wait until they get it right 8-)

.. just a thought!
User avatar
post-it
 
Joined: 17 Jul 2002
Status: Audio: bass remains; if else, 3D

Monitor

Postby Tiiscool » Fri Aug 03, 2007 6:21 am

Hello,

I need a new monitor. The old one sucks.

It is 21" but very very old. (Was only 20 Euro).
My eyes will be happy to have a new monitor.

Ti
User avatar
Tiiscool
 
Joined: 14 Nov 2004
Location: Alstätte, Germany

My results

Postby Tiiscool » Mon Aug 06, 2007 10:48 pm

Hello,

I will buy the Dell 2407WFP.

What I learned:

first you have to decide: TV or PC Monitor
- PC Monitor: highest is 24" ?
- DCL-TFT TV Monitor smallest: 32"
- I looked at some TVs and I tthink it is only for watching TV :D
- when you want a PC/TV Screen, chose a PC Monitor
- price: the same size: TV is cheap, PC monitor is expensive
- for example 32" TV cost nearly the same as 24" PC

Reaction time
- "Reaktionszeit: 16 ms (Schwarz-Weiß), 6 ms (Graustufen)"
- Reactiontime: 1 ms (black to hwite), 6 ms (grey)
There are two types of data. 8ms can be the same as 16 ms :shock: When I first checked the 2407WFP I was surprised: 16 ms, that is bad. But here it means from black to grey to white (8 ms + 8ms). Normally (I think) the reaction time is written only the first number.

PC / TV monitor:
yes they do exist, but they are not known very well. And of course they are more expensive. My friend has one with scart and I will get one with S-Video.

Resolution:
- 4:3
- 16:9
- 16:10 special for PC monitors, will become standard ?
- ...??

Cu,
Ti
User avatar
Tiiscool
 
Joined: 14 Nov 2004
Location: Alstätte, Germany

Re: My results

Postby BasharOfTheAges » Mon Aug 06, 2007 11:33 pm

Tiiscool wrote:Resolution:
- 16:9
- 16:10 special for PC monitors, will become standard ?


Square vs rectangualr pixels there... They're the same. (AFAIK)
User avatar
BasharOfTheAges
Just zis guy, you know?
 
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: Merrimack, NH
Status: Extreeeeeeeeeme

Re: My results

Postby Jnzk » Tue Aug 07, 2007 3:06 am

BasharOfTheAges wrote:
Tiiscool wrote:Resolution:
- 16:9
- 16:10 special for PC monitors, will become standard ?

Square vs rectangualr pixels there... They're the same. (AFAIK)

They're not. On a 16:10 PC monitor you will see narrow black bars on standard 16:9 material.
User avatar
Jnzk
Artsy Bastid
 
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Finland

Postby BasharOfTheAges » Tue Aug 07, 2007 3:14 am

I thought that had something to do with the encoding difference. ::confused::
User avatar
BasharOfTheAges
Just zis guy, you know?
 
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: Merrimack, NH
Status: Extreeeeeeeeeme

Postby BasharOfTheAges » Tue Aug 07, 2007 3:25 am

Sorry for double-post but the math I was going on was as follows:

16(0.9):9 = (16 * 0.9) / 9 = 14.4 / 9 = 1.6
16(1.0):10 = (16 * 1.0) / 10 = 16 / 10 = 1.6

A bit drawn out and pedantic, but I wanted to stress the multiplicitive nature of PAR and the fact that ":" denotes ratio. How is this not correct?
User avatar
BasharOfTheAges
Just zis guy, you know?
 
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: Merrimack, NH
Status: Extreeeeeeeeeme

Postby Willen » Tue Aug 07, 2007 6:55 am

Computer monitors are nearly all square pixels today (I'd actually be surprised to find one that uses rectangular pixels aside from a plasma monitor). Depending on how your video settings are, on a 16:10 monitor (1920x1200, 1680x1050, 1440x900, 1280x800, etc) playing back 16:9 video should result in thin black bars added at the top and bottom of the screen in full-screen mode. Certain video cards/chipsets will allow you to stretch the video (ignoring the proper aspect ratio) to fill the entire monitor screen. Some player software can/will do this too.

My two 19" 5:4 monitors (1280x1024) have thin black bars top and bottom when playing 4:3 videos (larger bars when playing widescreen material). The screen on my notebook is 16:10 (1280x800) and playing 16:9 videos thin black bars appear on the top and bottom; playing 4:3 videos results in "pillarboxes" or black bars on the sides of the video to fit the wide screen.
Having trouble playing back videos? I recommend: Image
User avatar
Willen
Now in Hi-Def!
 
Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Location: SOS-Dan HQ
Status: Melancholy

Postby BasharOfTheAges » Tue Aug 07, 2007 6:49 pm

Well, yes, a 16:10 display will play 16:9 video with black bars on the top and the bottom. I can choose to not resize my 720x480 video from a 4:3 DVD when I rip it and play it and it'll play with bars as well - in addition, circles won't look right and people will look fatter. AFAIK, The standard of 16:9 was for TVs with rectangular pixels - when put onto a computer monitor (with square pixels) it maintains the 16:9 qualities and what you see (because of the shape of each pixel being distorted) is something that doesn't quite look right yet follows the standards set by the AR flags.

(it's difficult to wrap this all up in my head properly without drawing a picture, but it seems to make sence to me... i'd like to see evidence to the contrary though)
User avatar
BasharOfTheAges
Just zis guy, you know?
 
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: Merrimack, NH
Status: Extreeeeeeeeeme

Re: My results

Postby post-it » Tue Aug 07, 2007 9:13 pm

Tiiscool wrote:What I learned:

first you have to decide: TV or PC Monitor ...
WRONG!!!
Image

.. first you must decide if you need a Capture Card or TV Card for your computer.

I chose to have my TV be my Capture/Tuner and my Software can take the Video from my TV without placing CPU Processing Power to Decode it and Copy it to my hard drive. The video is both pulled and played via the DV Ports.

The benefits out-way the drawbacks. The drawback is AC_7 Audio via the S/PDIF Connectors to and from my computer and TV Monitor ( it needs another stereo cable to accomplish that little problem ^__^ ) which it seem are built-in to both the Monitor and MY Computer -- by default 8-)

.. as to the problem invented by the post's made; Pixels are either Round or Square.

16:9, 16:10 .. the answer is .. 17:8 1366i .. 16:9 1080i .. who cares 720i -- someone mark this posting and compare it to the Standards Needed for the FCC's February 2009 Ruling and what products are being released in February 2009.

The Future: IMHO .. in 2009 the standards of 1366i & 1080i will be what the Sony Play-Station-Hand-helds will have and a New Standard will be accepted that we can not even begin to grasp and IT will be the Norm' ... KILLING-OFF the FCC's Mandated Ruling of Digital TV Standards by the set date of February 2009.
.. I like the idea of I-MAX TV .. but I can not see someone wanting an I-MAX Monitor!
.. AC_9 Audio has already been accepted as a standard oversea's !!
.. 80meg per second Cable Modems are already here today but no one can afford them >_<

.. now what I would like to see is a 32" high by 126" wide transparent wrap-around screen that you can roll-up and/or wrap around you showing a 180 degree view for Game Playing .. like Flying Ace's or Fighter Pilot's ( imagine having two screen for a 360 degree view of flying something ... or a very strange AMV 0_o where you can see things from every direction of the AMV; because you are now Part Of The AMV Itself 0_0 ) ... hey, it could happen 8-)

.. The futures not written yet .. so don't you dare stop dreaming about what is possible because "You Might Be One Of The Inventors Of That Project!"
User avatar
post-it
 
Joined: 17 Jul 2002
Status: Audio: bass remains; if else, 3D

Postby Tiiscool » Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:08 pm

Hello post-it,

yes be both are right. I wrote in my view an dyou wrote in your view.
I have only used a PC Monitor for a long long time. And when I saw the TVs in Saturn I did not like it. I do not want to capture something. So I decided for me, that I prefere a monitor.

Cu,
Ti
User avatar
Tiiscool
 
Joined: 14 Nov 2004
Location: Alstätte, Germany

Postby post-it » Wed Aug 08, 2007 5:48 am

^__^

one final thought .. one that most people do not notice:

.. does your Monitor loose its brightness in any direction?
1) Any monitor looks good straight/head-on.
but look at it when you are walking-by and notice if the brightness changes.
.... look at it when your viewing angle top-to-bottom changes.

if three people can see your Monitor, from different angles, and they all see "no difference" in the pictures quality, then you have a truly good monitor.

.. its a test that not many people are aware of. This test comes from problems people used to have with Lap-Top screens which would get lighter and darker by the viewing angles. This is something that, today, can tell you many things about the Future of your Monitor and helps keeping you from getting something that may not last very long. 8-)

.. I like technology but I also like cheap prices .. what I don't like is buying something that is cheaply made. ( can you imagine buying a Monitor that still requires a separate Power Supply? )

8-)
User avatar
post-it
 
Joined: 17 Jul 2002
Status: Audio: bass remains; if else, 3D


Return to Video Hardware Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests