|
I spend my time at home reading news sites and typing terrible blog posts in Google docs. Do I need to look at "the best coding monitor" lists to find the best monitor for me? Assume I hate money up to $500. Or I guess more if that will get me some hot poo poo monitors. I previously had two 24" monitors at home but quickly realized I didn't need 2-3 monitors.
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 14:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 13:03 |
|
|
Is there are sub-$500 monitor that is 1440p, 27", G-Sync, IPS, 144hz, with color accuracy good enough to satisfy my non-professional photography needs? I'm not a pro, but I care about color accuracy and calibration. Because my desktop monitor is poo poo when it comes to color accuracy, I do all of my photo editing on my Dell XPS 15, which has an amazing monitor, but it's kind of a pain in the rear end. Am I asking too much?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 14:29
|
|
Sneeze Party posted:Is there are sub-$500 monitor that is 1440p, 27", G-Sync, IPS, 144hz, with color accuracy good enough to satisfy my non-professional photography needs? I'm not a pro, but I care about color accuracy and calibration. No, there isn't. You're looking at $700 or more for what you're asking for, maybe $650 if you find a really good deal.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 14:56
|
|
|
azzenco posted:I spend my time at home reading news sites and typing terrible blog posts in Google docs. Do I need to look at "the best coding monitor" lists to find the best monitor for me? Assume I hate money up to $500. Or I guess more if that will get me some hot poo poo monitors. Definitely not. You would look at the size and price. A TN would be fine for you, and if you can afford it I would go with a Dell since they're usually better quality than the rest.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 20:39
|
|
|
Sneeze Party posted:Is there are sub-$500 monitor that is 1440p, 27", G-Sync, IPS, 144hz, with color accuracy good enough to satisfy my non-professional photography needs? I'm not a pro, but I care about color accuracy and calibration. Unless you're willing to settle with TN. Which honestly isn't that big of a caveat. I'm using a first generation Rog Swift Gsync monitor with a TN panel next to a dell IPS monitor and there's not much of a difference. The more expensive TN panels are better than people think.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 20:51
|
|
|
why are monitors so expensive? my 50 inch curved 4K TV cost me £599 but my 27" IPS monitor cost £565 or is this a bad comparison since I bought my TV during black friday?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 22:26
|
|
|
I just managed to crack the panel on my ancient 2408WFP like the dope I am and am looking for a similar replacement. It was just used as a secondary screen for browsing or films, so good colours would be nice. Don't care about anything gaming since my main screen is for that. I've been reading around for ages and now feel like I'm way over thinking things. I've somehow landed on an S2418H (but don't need the integrated speaker). Is that a decent solution? Any other good recommendations around that sort of price?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 22:31
|
|
|
Q8ee posted:why are monitors so expensive? my 50 inch curved 4K TV cost me £599 but my 27" IPS monitor cost £565 My 27" IPS 4K monitor (a budget LG model) cost like £300 in notoriously expensive New Zealand. Aside from the stand being a wobbly, non-adjustable piece of poo poo it's fine.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 22:46
|
|
|
dissss posted:My 27" IPS 4K monitor (a budget LG model) cost like £300 in notoriously expensive New Zealand. Aside from the stand being a wobbly, non-adjustable piece of poo poo it's fine. There's another version of that monitor available, the LG 27UD58P-B, which has a fully adjustable stand for pretty much the same price. It's pretty solid. Doesn't have the wobble problem the regular curved LG stand has. But, of course, it doesn't offer Gsync or 144 Hz.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 22:53
|
|
Q8ee posted:why are monitors so expensive? my 50 inch curved 4K TV cost me £599 but my 27" IPS monitor cost £565 TVs are manufactured on a much larger scale, so economies of scale let them reduce costs more. Also higher DPI panels are more expensive to manufacture even if they are smaller, it's part of why high end smart phones are so expensive. 1080p monitors are an exception since you can use 4k TV panels to make those just by chopping them up.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 23:27
|
|
|
Volguus posted:Definitely not. You would look at the size and price. A TN would be fine for you, and if you can afford it I would go with a Dell since they're usually better quality than the rest. I say thanks!
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2018 00:34
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:TVs are manufactured on a much larger scale, so economies of scale let them reduce costs more. Also higher DPI panels are more expensive to manufacture even if they are smaller, it's part of why high end smart phones are so expensive. 1080p monitors are an exception since you can use 4k TV panels to make those just by chopping them up. Additionally, this is why the lovely 16:9 aspect ratio took over. Economies of scale allow the majority of tone-deaf people listen to tone-deaf music and blind people to look at 16:9 monitors.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2018 02:02
|
|
|
Volguus posted:Additionally, this is why the lovely 16:9 aspect ratio took over. Economies of scale allow the majority of tone-deaf people listen to tone-deaf music and blind people to look at 16:9 monitors. I mean, 16:9 has been an industry standard for movie theaters for approximately forever. What aspect ratio would you have preferred to see as the dominant one?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2018 05:03
|
|
|
Any thoughts on a Dell U2718Q versus an LG 27UD68P-B? The Dell I can get through Costco.com which I think means a longer warranty if I use my Costco credit card. My current monitors are 10 years or older and getting blurry for some reason (old fluorescent tube?)
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2018 05:07
|
|
|
Zarin posted:I mean, 16:9 has been an industry standard for movie theaters for approximately forever. 16:9 was never a movie theater standard. Movies have always been even wider than that
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2018 05:08
|
|
|
VostokProgram posted:16:9 was never a movie theater standard. Movies have always been even wider than that For some reason, I thought that "Flat" movies were 16:9, but it seems I was misremembering: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16:9 Looks like 16:9 was some turbo-compromise. As I read through the article and thought about it more, I recall that I've frequently made the joke about taking vertical phone videos is an affront to both God and Man because our eyes aren't positioned that way. Which makes me wonder: if we were to analyze the average human viewing frame, what would THAT aspect ratio look like?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2018 06:12
|
|
|
We are talking about monitors still, right? Computer monitors. That is, one piece of equipment that is not primarily used for movies. Coding, web browsing, lovely forum posting. Movies ... that's quite far on the list of things a monitor gets used for. Even if 16:9 was the golden standard Hollywood blessed, it makes absolutely zero sense (other than plain economies of scale and gently caress you) to use that aspect ratio for all the other activities a monitor gets used for. As for my preferred aspect ratio, 4:3 would be it, if not i can live with 16:10.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2018 08:02
|
|
|
Modern anamorphic film releases are actually closer to 21:9 aspect ratio, just sayin'. That's why films don't look like rear end on my 34" AW.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2018 08:55
|
|
|
Zarin posted:For some reason, I thought that "Flat" movies were 16:9, but it seems I was misremembering: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16:9 Yeah 16x9 is a compromise, but it's dominant now because it's the "HD" aspect ratio, and basically all "video" (i.e. TV) is shot in it. Movies were shot in wide formats (closer to 2:1) after TVs became ubiquitous in homes, in order to attract people back to theaters for something they couldn't see at home. I agree with you 100% about people recording vertical video with their phones. On that subject, I've been wondering who invented that thing they usually do now where they fill the sides of the frame with cropped portions from the original video, and it does a good job of making the video look less-horrible. Human [non-binocular] field of view is roughly 180° around; it's wider than it is tall, of course, but according to an old reference cited in that article, humans have around an overlapping 210x150° FoV, for a 7x5 aspect ratio.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2018 12:08
|
|
|
Sneeze Party posted:Is there are sub-$500 monitor that is 1440p, 27", G-Sync, IPS, 144hz, with color accuracy good enough to satisfy my non-professional photography needs? I'm not a pro, but I care about color accuracy and calibration.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2018 13:23
|
|
|
Khorne posted:XB271HU BMIRPZ is $599 on newegg during the current sale. There might be another $550 sale in the next 6-8 months, and $500 is the cheapest it has ever been during some costco thing years ago at this point. So $600 is a good price.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2018 14:27
|
|
|
Charles posted:Any thoughts on a Dell U2718Q versus an LG 27UD68P-B? The Dell I can get through Costco.com which I think means a longer warranty if I use my Costco credit card. Out of these two, I prefer the LG: In addition to DisplayPort, it has two fully-featured HDMI 2.0 ports (which support 4k@60 Hz). This offer more flexibility than the 2 DP and 1 HDMI configuration of the Dell. The Dell is also missing FreeSync, which the LG supports via DP as well as HDMI (the latter, via HDMI, isn't advertised, but there are videos of it working online). And the Dell's HDR is simply a higher maximum brightness combined with a software algorithm, so not HDR at all. Essentially a worthless marketing gimmick. In my experience, Dell is quite a bit better with quick warranty turnaround (replacement in one day), while with LG, I've had to wait ~1,5 weeks for warranty turnaround. The Dell stand is also less wobbly (although the LG isn't too bad).
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2018 14:46
|
|
|
Sneeze Party posted:This looks great! Thank you. I think I'm gonna pull the trigger on it. I bought mine literally last week, I'm insanely happy with it. it has made a world of difference and I don't know how I ever managed with my old 24" 1080p monitor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2018 17:18
|
|
|
Give me US pricing for 4k/144hz/HDR/G-Sync already! And make them bigger than 27 inches! I am going to spend so much money aren't I 
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2018 17:26
|
|
|
Deuce posted:Give me US pricing for 4k/144hz/HDR/G-Sync already! There was a price leak for a 27" European store and it was close to $3k. Even factoring in EU taxes and whatnot, even in the US where everything tech is cheaper, I'd say you're looking at ~$2199-2499. For something bigger? The only option are those 65" TVs at the moment - and even those are ~only~ 120Hz. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 01:51 on Apr 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2018 22:58
|
|
|
Fame Douglas posted:Out of these two, I prefer the LG: In addition to DisplayPort, it has two fully-featured HDMI 2.0 ports (which support 4k@60 Hz). This offer more flexibility than the 2 DP and 1 HDMI configuration of the Dell. The Dell is also missing FreeSync, which the LG supports via DP as well as HDMI (the latter, via HDMI, isn't advertised, but there are videos of it working online). And the Dell's HDR is simply a higher maximum brightness combined with a software algorithm, so not HDR at all. Essentially a worthless marketing gimmick.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 01:21
|
|
|
Khorne posted:XB271HU BMIRPZ is $599 on newegg during the current sale. There might be another $550 sale in the next 6-8 months, and $500 is the cheapest it has ever been during some costco thing years ago at this point. So $600 is a good price. Any ideas how long this sale will last? Been meaning to upgrade to 1440 @144hz for a bit now and should have the cash to blow soon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 05:45
|
|
|
I'm Elentor and I unofficially endorse XB271HU. My K/D in PUBG went from 0.86 to 1.5 and rising since I got a XB271HU. You too can be a winner with a XB271HU.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 06:32
|
|
|
Stan Taylor posted:Any ideas how long this sale will last? Been meaning to upgrade to 1440 @144hz for a bit now and should have the cash to blow soon. It goes on sale pretty often. If you don't catch this one, you shouldn't have to wait long.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 13:51
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Modern anamorphic film releases are actually closer to 21:9 aspect ratio, just sayin'. That's why films don't look like rear end on my 34" AW. For all intents and purposes, monitor 21:9 is identical to cinema aspect ratio. I'm sure most people don't watch movies on their PC monitors but you bet your rear end I watch 21:9 on my 34 Alienware. Two feet away with that nice screen curve covers my field of view more than most actual movie theaters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 20:58
|
|
|
Elentor posted:I'm Elentor and I unofficially endorse XB271HU. My K/D in PUBG went from 0.86 to 1.5 and rising since I got a XB271HU. You too can be a winner with a XB271HU. My KDR is over 3.0, I have an X34 be like me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 13:37
|
|
|
I'd love to but that's the price of a car here and I'm still a lot of practice away from 3.0. Still, almost at 2.0 so hooray for the XB27. Either way the point of my anecdote is to hopefully dismiss poo poo like this researcher who says anything above 24hz should not yield any benefit to the user even if the user perceives a difference. quote:“After 24 Hz you won’t get better, but you may have some phenomenological experience that is different.” Elentor fucked around with this message at 14:01 on Apr 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 13:52
|
|
|
This doesn't seem bad https://www.buydig.com/shop/product...content=4485850
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 14:32
|
|
|
Elentor posted:I'm Elentor and I unofficially endorse XB271HU. My K/D in PUBG went from 0.86 to 1.5 and rising since I got a XB271HU. You too can be a winner with a XB271HU. I endorse this monitor cause it's gorgeous and has so much real estate. But my K/D in PUBG didn't get magically boosted unfortunately. How well I play in PUBG seems entirely randomized some days I'm Shroud-tier and react like I've just snorted a copious amount of cocaine, but most days my brain feels sluggish and I react too slowly before I realise I'm dead.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 14:46
|
|
|
wargames posted:This doesn't seem bad I'm holding out for the new LG 5K 34" Ultrawide. Worst case scenario, it will be too expensive and Ill pick up something like that instead.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 15:48
|
|
|
Q8ee posted:I endorse this monitor cause it's gorgeous and has so much real estate. But my K/D in PUBG didn't get magically boosted unfortunately. How well I play in PUBG seems entirely randomized Stepping up to high refresh and gsync made me feel like I'm better at overwatch. I don't know if I'm actually any better, but it feels like it and that's ok.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 16:04
|
|
|
Khorne posted:XB271HU BMIRPZ is $599 on newegg during the current sale. There might be another $550 sale in the next 6-8 months, and $500 is the cheapest it has ever been during some costco thing years ago at this point. So $600 is a good price. It's $550 now if you enter EMCPTEW32 coupon at check out. Edit2: Deleted previous edit. Linked wrong monitor. OhFunny fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Apr 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 18:12
|
|
|
Elentor posted:- The wise words of someone who's never played a competitive game in his life. I don't understand all the speculation and debate. If someone legitimately believes it makes no difference then why don't they do a study? Especially when that someone is a researcher in a relevant field. I don't think it has a notable impact on raw reaction time. On average, you're looking at a 4.86ms reaction difference. Worst case is double that. I'd bet that's within margin of error in lots of testing environments. They improve your time from recognize->aim->identify you're aimed->click, but the mechanism through which they do it isn't speeding up the "recognize" step which is what most would call "reaction time". The big difference is in properly identifying position of moving objects, including your own cursor/fov, without having to "wait". At lower refresh rates, you're almost forced to stare at the center of your screen and get objects into that center. At higher refresh rates, you can snap your vision+fov to an object by looking at the object. Those are the only two ways to "aim" in an fps that I know of, and I intuitively do the latter which is why I loathed LCDs before learning to do the former (and then 144Hz came out and you can do either, yay!) If you do the former, the refresh rate difference is not as large because you'll be consistent either way. If you do the latter, refresh rate is huge because your accuracy will suffer at lower refresh rates and you'll over or under aim because you're aiming toward an ever-changing "position" on your screen instead of an object entering your crosshairs. The paragraph above is becoming common knowledge now. It wasn't common knowledge before because people don't think about that kind of stuff. It's very difficult to take a distanced look at something like that, because it's very intuitively and without conscious thought that we do those things. It reminds me of qhimp where the researchers couldn't do it at 5 digits but I, and presumably many others, can. It appears the game is actually down now. It was kind of fun. It'd show you a set number of digits or symbols (up to 9) for a brief period (as fast as 205ms) in a random configuration on your screen and then you had to click the positions of the now-hidden numbers/symbols in sequence. 5 digits took no practice at all because you can see+mentally map the digits from 1-5 and even start clicking them in the 205ms. No thought or memorization required. Higher digit counts do get more difficult, because you see it so briefly that recognizing all 9 digits, their position, and mapping between them isn't really possible for me once it goes over 7, and even 7 is inconsistent. So you just kinda cheat by doing it for a cluster of 5-7 digits and then hoping you can recall the shape of the digits not in the cluster. 7-9 digits also makes it harder to recognize+map 5 digits out of the 7-9 because it kind of "distracts" or overloads my brain. Khorne fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Apr 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 18:21
|
|
|
I can the LEDs flicker in car lights (and even the dashboard of a rental car) and that drives me crazy. I figure I must be the only person out there or they wouldn't make that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 18:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 13:03 |
|
|
Just put a loving monitor with 144Hz next to one with 60Hz, and 30Hz, and see what happens. It's truly the silliest argument, the difference is plainly obvious.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 18:41
|
|
