Monitor advice

[mn shutterbug]

I inherited a Gateway desktop awhile ago from my cousin. After she moved, she couldn't get it to even boot up. I reformatted and and reinstalled XP and some programs. Unfortunately, the monitor has to be struck occasionally to get the picture to straighten out. It also needs more memory, which is cheap these days.

However, I've been looking at monitors online and see the majority are now widescreen. I've already decided on flat panel of course, but what's everybody's take on wide screen? I understand the whole idea is for watching movies, but I don't need the PC for that. Also, what do you consider a good minimum resolution? The one that's attached right now is just 1024 X 768. Even that looks good to me. Actually, that's what my laptop has, too. I've also seen contrast ratios from 500:1 to 2000:1. I don't think size is that important. A 17" would probably be fine. I measured the current one and surprisingly, it measures 16" from corner to corner. That seems a bit strange. I'm going to try and keep my investment to not much more than $200 to $225 or so. Also, I would assume response time shouldn't be that big of a deal either, as long as I'm not watching movies on it.

Anyway, what is more important, resolution or contrast ratio?
__________________
Mike

[Rocket_Scientist]

I bought my first Gateway in 1989, and since that time I have always owned one, a total of four or five, I think. I've had my current machine for about three years, and the monitor is starting to get flaky. It is an 18" flat panel, and my next monitor (if I have to get one) will be at least 19", with a resolution of at least 1280x1024 (which is what I run now). If you're building up an auxilliary PC, or do not plan to edit photos, perhaps 17" will do, but I'd say go with the biggest you can afford. I don't think I like the wide screen ratio, but I may not have much choice any more. I guess it needs to have the same aspect as 1280x1024, or maybe I'm just too picky. I think you should go for at least 800:1 contrast, but most response times in the 5 to 15 ms are probably adequate unless you are playing real-time simulations or games. By the way... I probably will not buy another Gateway. They always had the best choice of equipment, but these days they are just too expensive, so I'll probably go with Dell... where I get a corporate discount, anyway.

[Tel]

Heres something I can help on.

Check this one out. 170$ + 14$ shipping. I have this monitor personally, and I (and 827 other people) can recommend it. 700:1 Contrast Ratio, 19 inches, Widescreen, yeah.

Just don't plan on using the built in speakers, they aren't terrific.

[Frog]

Get a crt......better color rendition unless its changed in last couple of years.
Cost way less, too.

[Medley]

mn, here's my formula for minimum resolution: measure the width (just the width, not diagonally) of the screen, in inches, and multiply by 75. Find the resolution closest to that number.

This is important to me for setting up a soft proof view for my prints. If I set my resolution to 75 ppi, and use the 25% view in Photoshop, I get an effective resolution of 75X4 or 300 ppi, the same res as my prints.

So long as I'm willing to reduce my files to 300ppi times the print size, the view that I set up is basically a WYSIWYG view for prints. It realy helps for determining things such as sharpening amounts.

I have a 17" monitor that measures 14.5 inches across. According to the above formula, my resolution would have to be 1087.5 pixels. I use the 1152x720 resolution (79 ppi). The difference is minute enough that I generally don't notice it.

Food for thought.

- Joe U.

[Rocket_Scientist]

...a 17" monitor that measures 14.5 inches across...

Are you sure? A 17" (viewing area) which measures 14.5" across would only be 8.9" high, i.e., over one and a half times as wide as it is high. That width sounds more like a 20" monitor. For example, my 18" (flat panel) only measures 14.25" across. I do like your technique, but to be thorough, you would need to get a resolution that matches (as closley as possible) the monitor's length to width ratio. In other words you need to get roughly the same dpi both vertically and horizontally, don't you? However, I personally would use 96 dpi as a standard. This is because I use my monitor primarily for viewing large amounts of text, which I like to be very crisp.

[freygr]

Last year I could not find a NEW CRT computer monitor unless you spent big bucks on a very large monitor.

The problem with getting wide screen is will the video card support the 1248 x 768, 1440x900 or 1920x1080 resolutions??

If the video card will support those resolutions and you do panoramas I don't see and I have not had any problems with my 1440x900 wide screen monitor.

[Medley]

RS- you have perfectly described the monitor of a 17" MacbookPro (Actually, the height measurement is closer to 9 3/16 and diagonal measurement 17.1, but I didn't feel the need to split hairs.)

As to the technique, the only time I worry about the length to width ratio is when I have more than one choice of pixel height for a given length. For example, I have the option of setting my screen resolution to either 1024X640 or 1024X768. But setting the resolution as closely as possible to 75 ppi takes precedence over length to width ratio- it's what makes the system work.

And just to clarify, my "normal" screen resolution is 1680X1050 (also more than one and a half times wide as it is high ). I only use the 1152X720 resolution for processing photos for print, and generally only to sharpen the image, as the rendered view is too small for my taste for many practical editing techniques. Still, to be able to see what the print will look like not only before you sharpen, but AS you sharpen- it's the best technique for sharpening that I've ever found. Combine it with the blend if: sliders to mute the sharpening halos in the high-contrast areas, and you can get pin-sharp photos with no halos and no guesswork.

But sharpening is a discussion for another time, and another thread. I apologize for going off-topic.

- Joe U.

[Sebastian]

Widescreens are not for watching movies, they allow you to have two full-page documents open with barely any overlap. CRTs are trash, the manufacturers stopped using decent components years ago. LCDs are matching and in some cases exceeding the best CRTs from years ago, but they cost three to five times as much to do so. Technology marches on, so that will change.

If you want a good monitor for photo work, you want an S-IPS panel. Most monitors with sub-16ms response times are the bottom-of-the-barrel TN panels, with high contrast ratios and response times as fast as 2ms. Problem is, looking at anything other than straight on the color and gamma starts to shift. That means when you're sitting in front of the screenm by the time your eyes hit the left or right edge you're already looking at incorrect colors.

Get what you can afford and don't worry about it. If you do want to spend some coin on something decent read then this site will be very helpful, in particular the panel database:

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/

To all Dell owners, if you have one of the 20" monitors you can tell what panel you have by the last letter of the serial number. "L" means an LG Philips S-IPS panel, "S" means a Samsung S-PVA panel (inferior o the S-IPS, and having owned both I can attest to it.)

Whatever you decide, just understand that you really can't make a bad choice. You can go cheap or expensive, and you're making sacrifices either way, it all depends on your priorities.

[gahspidy]

I just got a NEC 21" CRT monitor to replace my Viewsonic CRT that was over 6 years old. I first bought a samsung 226 bw 22" widescreen LCD and although the screen was sharp and crisp and allowed me to view multiple windows at one time, I found it was far inferior for editing photos. The screen was too bright even with everything down to zero. Also, as Sebastian stated, the colors and tones were off as soon as I looked to th side or sat off center a bit. The new NEC CRT cost me 259.00 and i seriously doubt that there is any LCD out there for that price that can come close to matching the accuracy of this monitor. I would love to have an LCD merely because of the space it saves and the power consumption, but I believe I would have to spend upwards of $600-$800 or more for a Lacie or top line sony to get the accuracy of this CRT. It all comes down to how much can you spend . . .