|
rearadmiral.rowboat posted:I don't understand this. I bought the 2312 because it was a hundred bucks cheaper and the only thing is missing is four lines of text.
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 07:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 14:27 |
|
|
DrDork posted:You are talking to people who would (and do) willingly spend $100+ to move from 1920x1080 to 1920x1200. Some of use like those extra 4 lines of text, even though we fully admit that it's not a cost-effective upgrade. Yeah, I'm quite happy with my 1920X1200 resolution, and for reasons I can't explain, 16:10 just "looks better" to me than 16:9.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 09:43
|
|
|
It might not be "cost effective", but really, you go for the monitor you want if you have the money. You could equally say that most people think monitors are dirt cheap now, and they'd say you'd be crazy to spend >$200 on a monitor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 09:47
|
|
|
UndyingShadow posted:Yeah, I'm quite happy with my 1920X1200 resolution, and for reasons I can't explain, 16:10 just "looks better" to me than 16:9. This is where I am with the whole 16:9/16:10 thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 13:24
|
|
|
They can pry my 16:10 from my cold dead hands
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 14:21
|
|
|
UndyingShadow posted:Yeah, I'm quite happy with my 1920X1200 resolution, and for reasons I can't explain, 16:10 just "looks better" to me than 16:9. There's actually a reason for this: 16:101 is really really close to the Golden Ratio2, for which both nature and humans have a well-known affinity and which has some slick basic math tricks related to it; also it was super convenient for HD video editors because they can keep entire frames and controls on screen simultaneously (whether it still is now that most workflows involve a fractal array of monitors is anyone's guess). 16:9 is 4:3 x 4:3. The TV industry is lazy and ended up dominating production. 1GOD I hate that this is how we refer to 8:5. 2(sqrt(5)+1):2, or about 1.618; compare 8:5 at 1.600 and 16:9 at 1.778. dont be mean to me fucked around with this message at 16:13 on Jan 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 16:08
|
|
|
Sir Unimaginative posted:1GOD I hate that this is how we refer to 8:5. That's bad, but also, see the Philips 21:9 ratio TV. I guess 7:3 is too hard 
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 16:38
|
|
|
HalloKitty posted:That's bad, but also, see the Philips 21:9 ratio TV. I guess 7:3 is too hard Counterpoint: Even though you can do math, do you really want to do some mental arithmetic every time you're figuring out which screen is relatively wider than the other? Now imagine the people who willfully forgot math yet still have a lot of money to spend.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 16:42
|
|
|
I've been trying to explain to a friend of mine that ~$300 27" monitors are going to suck hard since they're both TN and 1080p and 16:9. Unsuccessfully. It's not even a question of money, he just thinks they look great. IMO, it's not even those 120px, but the as other have said, the ratio just looks better and is easier to work with on a PC.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 16:44
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:I've been trying to explain to a friend of mine that ~$300 27" monitors are going to suck hard since they're both TN and 1080p and 16:9. Unsuccessfully. It's not even a question of money, he just thinks they look great. It's  inducing, I've had people come up to me super-smug because they paid less than I did for my U3011 to get 2 lovely TN 24/27" displays. "You don't know as much as you think about this stuff movax  "Then I hear them complain about why the pictures on screen don't match what they print, or why the colors on my display are so much better. v0v
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 17:21
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:Counterpoint: Even though you can do math, do you really want to do some mental arithmetic every time you're figuring out which screen is relatively wider than the other? I can absolutely see why you do it from a marketing perspective. It's also pretty convenient. Not to mention, we all know bigger numbers make something better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 17:48
|
|
|
^^^ I don't really see the harm in everything being 16:x or x:9, I can do basic arithmetic too but this just makes everything clear at a glance on spec sheet or price list movax posted:It's I think I forgot to mention the worst part - I wouldn't be at all surprised if this was just some guy who called his tower case the hard drive or something. But he's actually into computer stuff about as much as I am, and even actually studied informatics, unlike myself. I can even understand not being upset about TN, the modern panels aren't that bad. But 1080p at 27" or above is just lovely resolution no matter how you cut it. Uh, I should probably take a deep breath now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 20:02
|
|
|
I currently have 2x NEC 20WMGX2 . I have been itching to upgrade to a 23 or 24" monitor for some time now, but I have been reluctant because the NECs are pretty drat good. Do the newer Dells (U2312HM and U2412M) compare favorably with the 20WMGX2 in terms of color accuracy? Also, is there a step-up from the 2412M that has the same performance but will correctly scale a 1080p signal (if I wanted to use my PS3 on it).
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 20:16
|
|
|
Ghostpilot posted:Has anyone had experience with the Viewsonic VX2336s-LED IPS monitor? The price is certainly right, but I can't find any reviews on it (aside from a glowing review from an end-user on Amazon). I've also been hearing a bit about the graininess of the AG coat on the U2312HM. If you're in an environment where glare isn't an issue, might it possibly be worthwhile to consider a glossy IPS such as the SX2210T, or is it much ado about nothing?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 20:23
|
|
|
Sir Unimaginative posted:There's actually a reason for this: No, that's complete bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 23:15
|
|
|
shrughes posted:No, that's complete bullshit. Which part? Or is your mind just so blown that you're incredulous?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 23:15
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:Which part? Or is your mind just so blown that you're incredulous? See also http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/pseudo/fibonacc.htm
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 23:59
|
|
|
shrughes posted:See also http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/pseudo/fibonacc.htm A clearly reputable and unbiased source.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 00:02
|
|
|
shrughes posted:See also http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/pseudo/fibonacc.htm You and that link are pretty angry about this number that happens to turn up now and then. If someone swoons over Euler's identity, will you post a diatribe against e and how compound interest is bullshit?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 00:24
|
|
|
e: asking somewhere else
BlackMK4 fucked around with this message at 05:02 on Jan 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 00:28
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:You and that link are pretty angry about this number that happens to turn up now and then. If someone swoons over Euler's identity, will you post a diatribe against e and how compound interest is bullshit? No? Because compound interest is not bullshit, and e^(pi*i) = -1 is a fact? People don't swoon over the "e" rectangle or "e" spirals so there's nothing to get mad about. (People who think they're sooo smart for knowing that e^(pi*i) = -1 when they don't even know how we know it's -1 are a different matter.) On the other hand, the claim that 1.618 is a visually pleasing ratio for rectangles is indeed bullshit. Also nobody is angry that there are things "turn up" that are in approximately 8-to-5 ratios. What's angering is when people give examples that don't even meet phi specifications, when they selectively look for ratios within a certain distance of phi (they're never really equal to phi), and don't try the same technique on other potential ratios, and generally disregard all the possible techniques for actually making sure they're right. They're not interested in being right, they're interested in being one of the people who knows that phi is special and therefore they're special for "knowing" this without ever having investigated that perhaps it's 8/5 that's the special artistically pretty ratio or really that the idea might be complete bullshit. Suppose I posit that 1.414 is a more pleasing ratio for rectangles. Can you make a convincing argument that 1.618 is a more pleasing ratio for rectangles to have, or provide evidence that people prefer looking at such rectangles? Prediction: You can't. You don't get to the truth by inventing a fact and looking only for supporting evidence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 01:28
|
|
|
I think you're overreacting to an opinion that superficially resembles that which you hate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 01:53
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:I think you're overreacting to an opinion that superficially resembles that which you hate. Absolutely. Slow down, man, we just want things to watch things on and it was a neat idea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 02:21
|
|
|
someone didn't get enough hugs
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 02:32
|
|
|
Let's talk about pyramids and how they prove that the Egyptians were mathematically advanced by their relationship to pi
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 02:48
|
|
|
Ghostpilot posted:I've also been hearing a bit about the graininess of the AG coat on the U2312HM. If you're in an environment where glare isn't an issue, might it possibly be worthwhile to consider a glossy IPS such as the SX2210T, or is it much ado about nothing? tl;dr It's there, it's noticeable, it may or may not bug you. And everyone knows the Pyramids were engineered by aliens, man. I mean, they put alligator poop on their heads--not really a sign of advancement!
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 07:11
|
|
|
I'm looking for a new Monitor in the 200-300 Euro pricerange. Size somewhere around 22". I will mostly use it for gaming (nothing very twitchy though), fast milkdrop presets (i think these require a pretty good response time) and a bit of photo editing and movie watching. And i'd consider blacklevels rather important, they don't have to be amazing but should be noticeably better than on my current cheap TN philips. I guess the Dell IPS models might be what i'm looking for, but i've read that they have rather bad blacklevels...
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 10:30
|
|
|
Dogen posted:Let's talk about pyramids and how they prove that the Egyptians were mathematically advanced by their relationship to pi To be fair, the Egyptians did a loving fine job, however they did it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 11:11
|
|
|
On the subject of cheap, large monitors, can someone tell me why this is only ~300 $/€ http://www.lg.com/us/computer-products/monitors/LG-led-monitor-E2770V-BF.jsp Would this be even worth considering for gaming?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 14:46
|
|
|
Because it's a 27" 1920x1080 TN screen. Nothing unusual, and there are plenty of this type available around this price. Yes, it would probably be fine for gaming. It even has a gaming mode, which I assume strips out a lot of the processing done on the image. On the downside, it's TN and because of the size/resolution, has a coarse dot pitch/low DPI. HalloKitty fucked around with this message at 15:01 on Jan 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 14:56
|
|
|
Who makes good multi-monitor stands and wall mounts? The OP briefly mentions Monoprice and Ergotron, is there anyone else to look at? I'm looking for a dual monitor stand for either 20" or 22" Dell screens.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 18:02
|
|
|
Cpt.Wacky posted:Who makes good multi-monitor stands and wall mounts? The OP briefly mentions Monoprice and Ergotron, is there anyone else to look at? I'm looking for a dual monitor stand for either 20" or 22" Dell screens. I'm eyeballing this one: http://www.amazon.com/Dual-Monitor-Stand-clamp-monitors/dp/B002R9HQLI/ref=zg_bs_490624011_1 Loads of good reviews, fits my needs, and affordable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 18:51
|
|
|
19 o'clock posted:I'm eyeballing this one: http://www.amazon.com/Dual-Monitor-Stand-clamp-monitors/dp/B002R9HQLI/ref=zg_bs_490624011_1 I just bought one of those the other week for my two Dell U2311Hs. I'm loving it so far.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 22:55
|
|
|
I got a new Dell U2312HM from an eBay retailer. It's pretty sweet. The problem is that the item description specifically said "LATEST REV A02" and the monitor they sent me is REV A01. Should I exchange for the later revision? Edit: As far as I can tell, there are no dead or "bright" pixels. There's a faint buzzing sound, but only noticeable when my ear is close to the monitor. I'm still using my laptop, so I would have a screen in the meantime. crimedog fucked around with this message at 02:00 on Jan 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2012 01:33
|
|
|
UndyingShadow posted:Yeah, I'm quite happy with my 1920X1200 resolution, and for reasons I can't explain, 16:10 just "looks better" to me than 16:9. edit: For a PC, not for a console. Cicero fucked around with this message at 07:59 on Jan 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2012 07:54
|
|
|
Has anyone ever used something like this to extend VGA connections over Ethernet cable? I'd rather go with a proper balun, but those extenders are 1/10 the price and I'm on a budget.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2012 09:22
|
|
|
Megiddo posted:Has anyone ever used something like this to extend VGA connections over Ethernet cable? How far are you planning to go? In my experience, long runs of VGA get problems with blurriness, particularly for high resolutions and/or fast refresh rates. I can only imagine that using cat5 cables would make those problems worse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2012 12:42
|
|
|
About 75-100 feet for the longer runs. I've never had any issues in the past with 100' runs of VGA cable at 1280x1024. I would just run VGA cable, but this has to be run in a plenum space and plenum VGA cable is 10 times the price of plenum Cat5e cable. I just went ahead a bought a few of the extenders, so I'll see if they work at all in a few days. The real question is, how well will they work when the unshielded Cat5e is in close proximity to fluorescent lights and various cables in the ceiling?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2012 13:22
|
|
|
Cicero posted:You can make the u2412m run in 16:9 mode with black bars/no blurriness, right? That might sound like a dumb thing to want but Starcraft 2 is designed for 16:9 and if you have a narrower aspect ratio you get a smaller viewport in the game. What you're asking about is usually called 1:1 pixel mapping, and no, the U2412 does not have that. 1:1 pixel mapping means the monitor will take whatever resolution you give it, map it to that exact number of pixels, and black out the rest of the screen. The U2412 doesn't do that - it takes whatever resolution it gets and stretches it to fill the screen. It's possible that a game will give you a 16:9 "letterboxed" mode, where it generates the black bars itself and thus gives the monitor a true 1900x1200 resolution, but it's highly unlikely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2012 13:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 14:27 |
|
|
Crackbone posted:What you're asking about is usually called 1:1 pixel mapping, and no, the U2412 does not have that. However, you can do that easily with your video card drivers (At least I know you can with Nvidia's control panel). You can just set SC2 to 1920*1080 resolution, and then set GPU scaling up in the control panel so that it effectively does the same 1:1 pixel mapping that some other monitors have as an option.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2012 16:44
|
|