|
OneZeroSix posted:Ok I know the OP said that DVI and HDMI are basically the same, but are there any advantages with HDMI over DVI? My monitor has a HDMI port, and my graphics card has two DVI ports. I was wondering if I got a DVI-HDMI cable and hooked that up would it make a noticeable difference over my current DVI-DVI cable? I watch HD movies on this monitor so being able to enhance the quality of video even a little bit would be nice. 1. Your DVI cable is sending a digital stream, which means barring extreme conditions the data the monitor receives is identical to what the video card sent (and in those extreme conditions it's not just a little fuzzy, something's obviously hosed up). The quality of your video transmission is already perfect, so it cannot possibly get any better. 2. When the OP says DVI is "electrically compatible" with HDMI, what that means is that a DVI signal is also a valid HDMI signal. When you get an DVI->HDMI cable or converter, it will still be sending exactly the same signal over exactly the same wires, the only difference is the shape of the connector at the end. stonewallpatton posted:Yes. I went through Mac OSX guide to setting up a dual monitor. Adjusted all the necessary preferences (brightness, contrast, gamma, etc.). You might get it closer in color with the "sRGB" video mode, or whatever color temperature settings are available. You probably won't be able to get them very close without the aid of a colorimeter, though. It's not just a matter of the price of the display; two different models of panels aren't likely to show the same colors without a lot of calibration (although the fact that you're pairing a TN panel with a high-end IPS panel certainly isn't helping matters).
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2010 07:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 06:57 |
|
|
stonewallpatton posted:Colorimeter? http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3372494&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=1#post385561464
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2010 07:17
|
|
|
Steakandchips posted:I think your old Samsung, at a smaller screen size and at a lower res will begin to annoy you eventually, next to a U2410. I have matching screens at home, and mismatched screens at work. In my experience, the difference in size/resolution by itself is not a big issue. I, of course, strongly favor working on the larger monitor at work, with stuff that doesn't need as much attention on the other screen. But I do the same thing at home anyway, favoring one monitor and sitting closer to it. Small differences in pixel pitch aren't noticeable thanks to the separation from bezels. The bigger issues are mismatched colors, although I was able to configure mine so they aren't too different, and I don't really notice the difference most of the time, as long as there isn't anything spanning both screens, and mismatched vertical resolutions. With a 1080 pixel vertical resolution next to 1200, there's 120 pixels at the top or bottom of your bigger screen where your mouse stops instead of moving over onto the next screen. Mine's only 26 pixels at the bottom, which I find totally unnoticeable, but at 120 I think it would start to get disruptive.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2010 20:44
|
|
|
WanderingKid posted:If you can tell the difference between 10 milliseconds and 2 milliseconds average response time then you ain't human. This is also irrelevant, because the pixel response time and input are two different, independent things. 10ms vs. 2 milliseconds is not detectable, but some monitors (and many TVs) have as much as 50-100ms input lag.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2011 17:35
|
|
|
TheStampede posted:Huh, I'll admit I'm pretty ignorant about monitors, but it says my max resolution is 2560x1600. The "max resolution" means "the maximum resolution for which an output can be produced", not "the maximum resolution for which a good 3d gaming experience can be provided". That said, a 6870 is powerful enough to do well enough for most current games, as long as you don't turn up the settings too high.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2011 21:20
|
|
|
Nostrum posted:I have "this is ARE resolution" syndrome when it comes to 16:9 computer monitors (keep your drat TV resolutions out of my PC!) and as such I'm in the market for a 24" 16:10 IPS monitor to compliment/replace my aging (but still going strong) 2005FPW. I'm still using a pair of 2001FPs. The "pair" part already gives me enough horizontal resolution, I want vertical, god dammit! Too bad 4:3 monitors don't exist anymore.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2011 22:40
|
|
|
That's just like Synergy. If you don't want to pay for a DVI KVM, then I think your options are going to be remote desktop, using VGA instead of DVI, or going manual on the video part. If your monitors will accept more than one DVI/HDMI input, you can use the input switching on your monitor.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2011 22:59
|
|
|
ClosedBSD posted:is my assumption correct that LED-based backlights are more evenly lit Only if it's LED backlit, and not LED edge-lit (which is popular since you can make amazingly thin panels that way).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2011 22:58
|
|
|
Also, 120hz doesn't matter at all for desktop usage. Whatever it is bugging you about your current monitor, it's not the refresh rate.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2011 18:05
|
|
|
Just a couple posts up they're talking about how the U2412 will technically only have 262K colors and even professional reviewers can't tell the difference. It looks like the panel you've got is S-PVA, so what you're coming from isn't too bad. The big difference for reasonably desktop panels is, as you've realized, the price has come down a lot. Upgrading would probably get you blacker blacks, a little less ghosting, but overall probably not a big difference.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2011 05:38
|
|
|
Bazanga posted:The one thing that could be bothersome is that it has an 8ms response time while the U2410 has a 6ms response time. I'm going to be using this mainly for work but I don't want to be ghosting like crazy when I'm using it for gaming. It's a difference of two milliseconds. You really think you can easily see that?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2011 22:05
|
|
|
DrDork posted:It sounds like you may be running the new monitor at an incorrect resolution. With HDMI, text should be fairly crisp, no matter the monitor. He actually explicitly said he tested it at both, and only complained about the fuzzy text at the incorrect resolution. And yeah, it's not too surprising that running a 1920x1080 LCD monitor at 1680x1050 looked like poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2011 15:19
|
|
|
SpaceDrake posted:ideally, it's an investment that should last you a decade or more without issue. That's why I invested in an Ultrasharp, My 2001FP Ultrasharps are at 6 and 7 years old. I don't think they'll make the decade mark since 24" are getting cheap enough to make upgrading fairly cheap, but there's still not anything of the same size that would tempt me.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2011 04:55
|
|
|
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
|
|
The Lenovo Thinkpad X220 seems to have an IPS display.
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
El Grillo posted:but if you want extra functionality (like 'send to other monitor' buttons on each open window) then you'll need 3rd party software I think. Even that's not really needed with Windows 7, since you can easily just drag the titlebar, or use the windows key + shift + arrow keys to move windows between monitors. Basically, the only thing Windows 7 doesn't do that you might want is multi-monitor task bars.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2011 18:19
|
|
|
pipebomb posted:Are you guys aware of any displays around 40" that do better than 1080p? Ideally 2560x1440/1600 for use with my Macs. They exist, but there's no consumer market for them... which means they are extremely high quality professional devices. IIRC, pricing starts around $20,000.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2011 21:37
|
|
|
Goodpart posted:b) LCD, not LED "LED" monitors are also still LCD monitors; it just means the backlighting is LED rather than CCFL. They're thinner and lower power, but can have problems with clouding at the edges if they're edgelit (which they usually are), and generally have a cold color temperature. Unless you're really looking to save power, LED is not the important, must-have feature it gets marketed as.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2011 17:30
|
|
|
From the numbers I've seen for the TVs/monitors I've owned, I don't pick up on input lag until somewhere around 100ms+. I'd suggest assuming anecdotal reports of good input lag are from people like me, in the absence of good evidence to the contrary.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2011 01:55
|
|
|
Pretty much any video card from the past decade can handle dual monitors as long as you're only playing your games on one of them. I'd strongly recommend buying the same model for both monitors, preferably at the same time. Trying to get two significantly different monitors to look good next to each other, with similar colors, can often be pretty much impossible.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2011 03:00
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:Sorry if this has been posted already but are there even standards for getting 10bit color from an Application > OS > GPU > display connection > display? HDMI has the GPU > display connection > display portion covered. The HDMI standard includes specifications for supporting several wide-gamut color spaces and up to 16 bits per color. Displayport has this covered as well. Supposedly support for 10-bit or 16-bit color depth was added in Windows 7, but with some searching (including a bit of MSDN documentation) I couldn't find anything about it said after Windows 7 actually came out nor how it would be used. It is definitely possible to do 30-bit color with OpenGL and nVidia Quattro cards, and I think AMD's FireGL cards as well.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2011 23:12
|
|
|
Animal posted:When will AMOLED screens go mainstream? I love the screen on my Galaxy S, and would like to have pitch blacks on my monitor. I assume its a problem with making such a large screens. Other than that, are there limitations like screen lag, ghosting, etc? Sony will sell you a 17" OLED monitor for a mere $4,100. I don't know if it's been overcome yet (Sony doesn't offer a spec here), but in the past one of the major limitations of OLED has been a life span significantly lower than what most users will expect from a desktop display (displays in phones, of course, benefit from both lower usage and a comparatively short useful lifespan).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2011 21:04
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:Pardon my ignorance but how do games work with >60hz displays? I mean, does vsync become less noticeable? If not, and I keep vsync on, how often will modern games even go beyond 60fps @ 1080p? V-Sync works exactly the same at 120hz as it does at 60hz. If your video card/game is fast enough to consistently render frames at 120fps, then it will do 120fps, and if it's not, you'll get something less. And it is theoretically possible (with naive v-sync implementations) that you could only reach 119fps, with every frame rendering in exactly the same amount of time, and end up stuck at 60fps. If, and how often, that would happen depends on a huge number of factors so it's not something you could easily generalize.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2011 21:48
|
|
|
movax posted:VSync will try to maintain an FPS that's an even divisor of the screen refresh rate; I'm not aware of any V-Sync technique that intentionally attempts to maintain an even divisor. The problem with the traditional double-buffering model is that you can't start drawing the next frame until the current one gets displayed. This means that the effective time to draw each individual frame will effectively always be a multiple of the refresh rate, but the average of that is not necessarily a divisor. If the average time to render is close to a multiple of the refresh rate, some frames will take fewer refreshes than others (e.g. at 60hz, if frames take 17ms +/- 1ms, some frames will finish in one refresh and some frames will finish in two) and you'll end up with an FPS that's not an integer divisor of the refresh rate.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2011 22:33
|
|
|
unpronounceable posted:One of us is completely wrong, because you can't have 10" of screen space if the screen + bezel is 8". 23" is for the screen w/o the bezel, so using 21.66" as the width, including the bezel, will not get you the correct aspect ratio (and thus underestimate the height). I think taking out only .66" for bezel is underestimating, as well. Coming at it from a different direction, .2652mm Pixel Pitch * 1080 pixels = 286.4mm = 11.28".
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2011 19:21
|
|
|
Diovanti posted:Also I'm going to try buying this: http://www.amazon.com/DVI-D-Dual-Link-Female-Adapter/dp/B002JCQVW8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1318668751&sr=8-1 I've found posts saying that someone has gotten 2560 from this Clevo chassis. Not likely to help much. The wires are still going to be sending the same signals no matter what shape you rearrange the pins at the end into. Edit: Also, the HDMI connection doesn't even have the extra wires that are needed for dual-link DVI, so that adapter isn't doing anything different than a normal HDMI->DVI adapter. Zhentar fucked around with this message at 06:51 on Oct 16, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2011 06:48
|
|
|
DrDork posted:I can see the argument for 120Hz 2D gaming for response time and the like, but the story for actual 3D gaming isn't great right now. 120hz carries a 2D gaming benefit aside from the response time. Video cards still aren't good enough to add a realistic motion blur effect, and showing twice as many frames can go a long way to make up for this and make games appear more realistic.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2011 04:34
|
|
|
Clanpot Shake posted:I'm looking at the Dell Ultrasharp 2410 and U2412M. I don't really want to drop a grand on just monitors, but the port options on the 2410 are attractive. Would 1 of each work? The 2410 and 2412 have entirely different backlights (CCFL vs. LED), which will have substantially different color characteristics. I would not recommend going with one of each.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2011 23:12
|
|
|
gently caress 16:10, 4:3 is where it's at. I am going to cry when one of my current monitors dies 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2011 04:39
|
|
|
298298 posted:This is so :firstworldproblem: but I'm using a 55" tv as a monitor, I mostly watch movies/tv shows but also play PC games, and for all the games it works perfectly for except FPS games, and when I'm playing them there's just a very, very slight video lag problem. It doesn't make FPS unplayable even, just kind of puts me off of playing them. Does your TV have a "game mode" or some variant thereof, and have you put it in it? Most decent TVs have some setting to cut down on processing to reduce input lag for games.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2011 00:13
|
|
|
Try playing your games in VirtualBox and use it's scaling instead. I don't remember the details of it at this point, but I'm pretty sure it has more flexibility and better quality than most monitor scaling.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2011 17:27
|
|
|
The second monitor is just simple (and usually static) 2D desktop stuff. That kind of thing won't put any noticeable load on any GPU from the past decade or so.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2011 17:11
|
|
|
Dogen posted:When are we going to get OLED monitors, they jumped right up to 55" TVs for some reason They already exist, they're just expensive enough that they aren't targeted for consumers, so you've never heard of them.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2012 19:37
|
|
|
The 10" screens with that kind of DPI are only just now coming into the price range where they are reasonable for consumer products. And aside from the price, there are a few practical problems, with the poor DPI scaling of desktop OSes and software, graphics cards capping out at 2560x1600, and only very recently (past 6 months) has there been any hardware that can support DisplayPort 1.2, which is actually fast enough to support that high of a resolution.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2012 20:51
|
|
|
You are at least using DVI/HDMI to connect to the TV, right?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2012 20:37
|
|
|
Schpyder posted:I'm currently running a Dell 2209WA. Would upgrading to a U3212HM be at all worth it, or should I just wait and try to catch the U2412M on the low sale? The 2209WA and the 2312HM have the same resolution; the main difference is that the 2312 will be slightly larger. I'm pretty sure the 2312 would be a pretty underwhelming upgrade, at best.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2012 06:10
|
|
|
fookolt posted:As far as I can tell, this monitor is the most recent advance in this size category (and it's from last June) and god drat, I want it so badly: It's not the most recent advance, really (and there have been monitors that big for a long time). Monitors like that just aren't targeted for consumers at all so you never really hear about them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2012 19:10
|
|
|
They don't generally make LCD TVs with TN panels. Typically, they are some variety of VA panel, which tend to lie in between TN and IPS for both cost and image quality.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2012 02:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 06:57 |
|
|
I was considering making you an offer for it myself. Non-AG matte makes those things twice as tempting.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2012 14:49
|
|