|
freeforumuser posted:I won't even mind TNs for laptops if they were at least as good as those in Macbooks, but your average TN on a consumer laptop is truly bottom of the barrel garbage with no redeeming values. I totally understand TN's position to deliver cheap LCDs that can do the job as a bare minimum. On laptops though, with the viewing angles widely varying (from hinges / people crowded around watching), I wish PVA/MVA could be cheap enough to put in them. On Macbooks though, they're all premium laptops, an IPS option even would be wonderful. Then again, there are those rumours of laptop-size Retina displays...
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2011 03:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 09:04 |
|
|
Are there any 24" IPS monitors with a decent response time, a relative lack of input lag, and either no or very little antiglare coating? I realize that's probably asking too much, but I figure it couldn't hurt to ask.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2011 03:47
|
|
|
Quanta posted:Could someone explain to me why I'm so wrong. My IBM Thinkpad T43 has an IPS display. They could put a 15" IPS screen in a laptop in 2005, for a reasonable premium.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2011 05:05
|
|
|
I'm seriously considering getting a fw900, but are all the ones available for purchase going to be near or already burned out? The whole thing seems a little too good to be true, why would they kill off a monitor which 7 years later is still regarded by many to be the holy grail of displays? Pizer fucked around with this message at 07:36 on Aug 16, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2011 07:33
|
|
|
sethsez posted:Are there any 24" IPS monitors with a decent response time, a relative lack of input lag, and either no or very little antiglare coating? I realize that's probably asking too much, but I figure it couldn't hurt to ask. Uh, Any high-end one yes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2011 10:39
|
|
|
Pizer posted:The whole thing seems a little too good to be true, why would they kill off a monitor which 7 years later is still regarded by many to be the holy grail of displays? "Many" is relative. It's popular in a niche, which is likely still not enough to keep the economies of scale going strong enough to keep it commercially viable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2011 14:34
|
|
|
Pizer posted:I'm seriously considering getting a fw900, but are all the ones available for purchase going to be near or already burned out? I have three. You're going to need to put in work to get them to the  level of quality; I think a lot of people heralding its quality at this point are ignorant of the real amount of work it takes to keep the fuckers running.Their black-levels are outstanding (as mentioned in the OP), and you can run at fun resolutions like 1680x1050@100Hz/1920x1200@85Hz for games, but the 3rd or 4th time you take it apart that year to attach a DAS cable to tweak G2 voltage, or adjust the focus pots to tweak the image, it gets really, really old. Not to mention that even the cheapest, shittiest TN LCD will have the benefit of being able to render text crisply and cleanly on every single pixel, while on a CRT, you may have to sacrifice some edge focus to generate a clean image in the center. Mine live on in my basement, cocooned in some garbage bags to keep the dust out, but I don't foresee powering them on again for awhile...
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2011 15:03
|
|
|
Pizer posted:I'm seriously considering getting a fw900, but are all the ones available for purchase going to be near or already burned out? They're not "too good to be true" when you stop and consider all the benefits that LCD's brought to the table. Not the least of which are connections better than a standard VGA adapter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2011 15:19
|
|
|
DrDork posted:They are massive, heavy, power-hungry, hulking behemoths that couldn't justify the cost of their own production at some point (original MSRP was ~$2300)-- My new UPS has revealed the unfortunate truth that my U3011 + 2x 2209WA draw a combined 210W or so when they are on. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2011 15:48
|
|
|
movax posted:My new UPS has revealed the unfortunate truth that my U3011 + 2x 2209WA draw a combined 210W or so when they are on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2011 19:08
|
|
|
The monitor gods have truly smiled upon me. After shaming them by selling my U2711, my U3011 I purchased at an amazing price right here in SA-Mart has arrived today. And boy, it is truly glorious. Not noticing any input lag either. Very pleased.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 02:58
|
|
|
movax posted:My new UPS has revealed the unfortunate truth that my U3011 + 2x 2209WA draw a combined 210W or so when they are on. What UPS do you have that's showing you these stats?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 03:04
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:What UPS do you have that's showing you these stats? CyberPower CP1350PFCLCD. I think all the CyberPower w/ LCDs show these stats, and there's a Windows Sidebar gadget that will show it as well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 03:35
|
|
|
DrDork posted:At this point in time it's pretty much a gimmick. The 3D effects vary substantially from game to game, and games not intentionally designed with 3D in mind (so pretty much all of them) typically suffer from a laundry list of usability issues once you get over the WOW 3DEEE factor. Probably the most common one is that anything with a substantial HUD, control panel (like the interface in WoW), or basically any sort of interface not specifically tailored for 3D tends to have problems; the systems don't really understand the difference between how it should handle the interface vice other parts of the display, so you end up with problems focusing everything so that the interface is at a comfortable distance (and in focus) at the same time as the actual game scene is. This is somewhat less of a problem for most FPS games, due to the (generally) minimalistic HUD, but is a big problem for most RTS, MMO, and strategy games. Anyway after a month or so I figured I'd give 3D a crack (my screen came with the glasses) an experience which lasted around 15 minutes and to call it a gimmick is an understatement. You're right about about the hud being one of the biggest issues - in all games I've tried the hud is fixed at zero-focus-point (meaning it has no 3D effect and appears to be at the distance the screen is) yet it is obviously always-on-top and this means you can either go with the default setting where everything is zero-focused or further which means nothing will pop out of the screen and it wont be all that impressive, or end up with poo poo that appears closer than the hud that partially obscures it (which really fucks with your eyes/brains depth perception). Solutions to this (apart from removing the hud) are to program the game so that objects can obscure the hud, or to have the hud non-zero focused which would put limitations on horizontal placement (can't have it off-screen from one eyes perspective) and would result in the hud being somewhat less clear. I did have some luck with WOW by zooming the camera to be somewhat close to the character, adjusting zero-focus-point to be at the characters distance (making the character appear to be same distance as hud) and reducing depth significantly - though even with these tweaks it was only "tolerable" and it didn't stop me turning the poo poo off the second I started actually playing. But 120hz itself is awesome, highly recommended for any games where you need decent reflexes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 07:20
|
|
|
I have a question about refresh rates, and it's going to sound like a noob question. What are you doing that you're noticing an appreciable difference between 60 and 120 hz? I thought the human eye simply couldn't discern any improvement past a certain refresh rate, and that that refresh rate was lower than 60hz anyway. I'm probably 100% wrong about this, but from my memory of highschool physics, "Hz" is equivalent to "cycles per second", so 60Hz is 60 redraws of the screen (or frames) per second. Aren't movies run at 27fps or something? Is that "flickery" for some people? I thought that the whole 120hz monitor thing was specifically for 3d applications, in that it is drawing 2 frames (left eye and right eye) per refresh, not that it's refreshing a single frame 120 times per second. But like I said, I'm probably loving wrong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 08:56
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Uh, I've heard Dell's Ultrasharps have a pretty heavy antiglare coating, which is something I generally can't stand. Are those not considered high end? AlphaDog posted:I have a question about refresh rates, and it's going to sound like a noob question. Movies are 24 frames per second, there is a discernible difference between that and 30 frames per second (look at a soap opera or news show versus most movies and you'll see the difference), and those benefit from natural motion blur, which isn't something games have come close to perfecting. Likewise, it's definitely possible to tell the difference between 60Hz and 120Hz. Whether or not you care is another matter entirely. sethsez fucked around with this message at 09:07 on Aug 17, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 09:04
|
|
|
Also I think it becomes a lot more noticeable when you're actually interacting with the screen, rather than just watching it. Like maybe you wouldn't notice 120 vs 60 on a demo of a game, but you would if you were playing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 09:44
|
|
|
shrughes posted:I got a Dell U2410, and it's pretty much the way I expected, except that the buttons are capacitive. But it's awesome! I love that it glows when you go near it. But you have to turn off the loving beep when you press a button. Why that defaults to on I have no idea.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 11:01
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:I'm probably 100% wrong about this, but from my memory of highschool physics, "Hz" is equivalent to "cycles per second", so 60Hz is 60 redraws of the screen (or frames) per second. Aren't movies run at 27fps or something? Is that "flickery" for some people? Cinema is 24fps for some historical reason. TV is 29,976 because camera motors used to sync off 60Hz AC power, and 60 / 2 = 30. NTSC standards define 23,976 and 29,976 as valid frame rates (our friends in Europe have 25fps PAL, their grid frequency is 50Hz). The former is generally for film (and over decades, we have become accustomed to our movies looking the way they do) and the latter is for TV (again, that's why we're accustomed to TV/sitcoms/soaps looking the way the way they do). Our brains take care of interpolating the data we see and filling in the blanks, so to speak. Slow cinema pans at 24fps or soap-opera action at 30fps are things we've gotten used to. Sports is high motion, and is still sometimes broadcast interlaced to support this. quote:I thought that the whole 120hz monitor thing was specifically for 3d applications, in that it is drawing 2 frames (left eye and right eye) per refresh, not that it's refreshing a single frame 120 times per second. But like I said, I'm probably loving wrong. So now if we look at computer gaming, especially FPSes, this is a very high motion use-case. We're not limited by some camera somewhere, the only limit is literally how fast the CPU and GPU can generate frames to sear into your eyeballs. The motion will appear smoother to your eyes if its being refreshed at something like 85 or 100Hz, which you used to be able to do on CRTs. If you're familiar with the 120Hz effect on televisions, a lot of people consider it to make TV look awful (me included). The difference here is that there is an ASIC inside the TV interpolating input data and generating brand-new frames to deliver a 120Hz experience...and well, sometimes computers gently caress up. On my FW900, I absolutely loved playing FPS games at 1680x1050@100Hz (for slower games I would go up to 1920x1200). Motion was simply smooth, responsive and fluid. It's easier to deliver these refreshes with a CRT because you're just steering an electron gun around with deflection yokes, not refreshing 2.3 million pixels (* 3 colors) more than 60 times each second.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 15:27
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:I have a question about refresh rates, and it's going to sound like a noob question. tl;dr going past 60Hz is mostly to smooth out movement and try to get that "one frame ahead" that some serious FPS gamers feel makes a difference. DrDork fucked around with this message at 16:42 on Aug 17, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 16:39
|
|
|
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009278&cm_sp=ProductSpotlight-_-24-009-278-_-08172011 Newegg has this for $100 off - my interest lies in that you get a mouse and keyboard, and since I'm building a new system, will save me that cost. Any major red flags?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 17:12
|
|
|
Looks like a generic cheap TN, so if that's what you're looking for, it seems ok. The keyboard is a mini-keyboard, though, so be aware of that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 18:15
|
|
|
JD Brickmeister posted:http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009278&cm_sp=ProductSpotlight-_-24-009-278-_-08172011 I would suggest this instead: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824005230 An IPS monitor and only $10 more. Granted it's 2" smaller, but I'd still take it over a 24" TN. Unless a fully adjustable stand is a must or you're a hardcore gamer, there's no reason whatsoever to get a TN monitor if your budget is $150-$200.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 21:28
|
|
|
Quanta posted:I would suggest this instead: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824005230 Thanks
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 21:44
|
|
|
DrDork posted:I'm not really sure whether you were getting at this or not, but an important factor is that even if your eyes did have a firm, real refresh rate, sending a complete picture to your brain every 1/30s, they aren't taking instantaneous snapshots, but are accumulating over time. To use cameras as an analogy, imagine taking two pictures of a moving laser pointer dot 1/30s apart. If you take two pictures with 1/8000s exposure time, each picture will show a dot, in different positions. If you take two pictures with 1/30s, each picture will show a line following the laser's path. Your eyes/brain function like the 1/30s exposure time photographs. Your video card functions like the 1/8000s exposure time photograph. Even though you can't consciously tell when there is a transition between images your computer is showing you, you can still tell to some extent the difference between continuous movement and two snapshots mimicking movement. Some day, video cards will be good enough to simulate it, and it won't matter. But until then, higher refresh rates can help. Zhentar fucked around with this message at 01:38 on Aug 18, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 01:00
|
|
|
So I think I am finally gonna invest in a really nice monitor. I am using an AOC 27" now, so just about any nice panel would be an upgrade I think, but I really just want to "do it right" with this purchase. I do a lot of gaming, but am hardly super competitive so as long as lag doesn't interfere with just single player goodness in FPS and RTS game I am good to go. Size wise I can't decide if I want to stick with 27" or move up to 30". Anyone have any thoughts on that? Right now I am basically considering the Apple 27", and Dell and HP's 27 and 30". Is there any reason to not get any of these?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 01:05
|
|
|
so my Dell U3011 came in. I really don't know how i'me going to go back to anything smaller. It feels a lot more immersion with my games than with my 23" NEC. I do find that on full white backgrounds the amount of light coming out of the display can be overwhelming.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 03:29
|
|
|
Deathreaper posted:so my Dell U3011 came in. I really don't know how i'me going to go back to anything smaller. It feels a lot more immersion with my games than with my 23" NEC. I do find that on full white backgrounds the amount of light coming out of the display can be overwhelming. Yeah, it's pretty sweet bro  I agree the overwhelming white BGs can get overpowering at times, I make sure to have a lot of different color tones on my screen, heh.Now enjoying burning money to buy GPUs to game at native res.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 03:41
|
|
|
movax posted:Yeah, it's pretty sweet bro I just noticed that when I started playing BFBC:2, went down into the 30 fps range when in heavy firefights 
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 06:30
|
|
|
Just replaced my VGA cable with a DVI-D cable. If you wanted to spend a couple of bucks to make your monitor look much nicer, then yeah... do that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 08:34
|
|
|
A little advice on calibration if anyone has any experience with it:- I have read the OP post with regards to this, but I'm just wondering if anyone has any recommendations. Reviews seem to suggest X-Rite is the company to watch, and as such, I'm highly interested in the ColorMunki Photo. The ColorMunki Display seems to be a cheaper colourimeter as opposed to the more expensive spectrophotometer, and the Photo has more functionality I'd actually be interested in (the option to calibrate a projector is especially nice). Anyone here with input on calibration? Cheers!
HalloKitty fucked around with this message at 12:04 on Aug 18, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 12:02
|
|
|
My father is looking for a external monitor for his Macbook Air, but doesn't want glossy or to pay $1k, so he is asking me. He wants 16:10 and for it to be less than $400. I am suggesting the U2412M, but I have a U2410, so he can't possibly waste money for something as good as what the supa computar weezard has!  How do I tell him to  or are there other similar monitors in a more affordable price range?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 16:08
|
|
|
Sinestro posted:How do I tell him to
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 19:17
|
|
|
So I bit the bullet and purchased myself a U2311h from my university bookstore... for $200  I've tested it for any pixel problems. It has just one dead pixel, but these pixels are so small that it's hard to make out unless I'm actively searching and squinting for it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 20:57
|
|
|
krnhotwings posted:So I bit the bullet and purchased myself a U2311h from my university bookstore... for $200 egh, gross. go exchange it. I don't know how people can live with dead pixels.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 22:05
|
|
|
DrDork posted:Well, there's the fact that the U2412M is substantially cheaper than the U2410 originally was ($400 vs $600). There's also the ZR24W which should come in a little below $400. I'm also looking at the U2412M. I have an "Intel G33/31 Express Chipset family". Can that support 1920x1200?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 23:00
|
|
|
Anyone know any U2311H retailers in Canada, aside from the Dell Canada website? Looking to not pay full price.Surmy posted:Edit: Read back a bunch of pages, seems like the U2311H is definitly the monitor to go with, ordered a few. Zut! I just missed the sale on Dell Canada for the U2311H's. Are you looking to sell those extras? Tried to PM you but can't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 23:16
|
|
|
Mouse Cadet posted:I'm also looking at the U2412M. I have an "Intel G33/31 Express Chipset family". Can that support 1920x1200? You won't get playable gaming at that resolution but it will certainly be fine for desktop work.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 23:51
|
|
|
Wedesdo posted:egh, gross. go exchange it. I don't know how people can live with dead pixels. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 00:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 09:04 |
|
|
I got my Apple Cinema Display and it's so ri-loving-diculously nice. I don't know what to do with all this space. I'm so giddy I'm going to leave this fruity wallpaper on it for a month.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 01:31
|
|
