Really high resolution monitor brands

[Erik005]

I just found this one looks pretty good.

 

http://uk.hardware.info/reviews/3047/iiyama-prolite-g2773hs-gb1-the-ultimate-gaming-monitor

[Thor.]

I am really thinking of getting me one of these

 

http://www.futureshop.ca/en-CA/product/benq-benq-24-widescreen-3d-ready-led-monitor-with-2ms-response-time-xl2420t-xl2420t/10198341.aspx?path=5cde3f537f651ecf60614c6a620e27d8en02

[ChuckFinly]

What about pixel pitch? Is that an important factor?

 

I have been looking for a regular 1080p monitor (or TV :tongue:) and was curious about what the various numbers meant.

I did know that contrast ratio was measured differently per company (I saw it on a YouTube video from a guy who sells them), but what about pixel pitch (the distance between pixels), would that almost be as important as contrast ratio as far as sharpness goes?

 

What personally annoys me has to do with sharpness. A buddy of mine bought a monitor and played games on it. The problem was his games only looked natural at 1920*1080 native resolution (it was a 21 1/2 "). When he lowered the resolution to 1600*900, it looked awful, but on a TV, it looks good no matter if it's 720p, 900p, or 1080p (talking about a 30 + " TV). Simple question, why?

[Erik005]

The simple answer is post-processing.

 

A tv can modify the source material

 

A monitor can just display the material as it is provided by the pc.

[JimboUK]

What about pixel pitch? Is that an important factor?

 

I have been looking for a regular 1080p monitor (or TV :tongue:) and was curious about what the various numbers meant.

I did know that contrast ratio was measured differently per company (I saw it on a YouTube video from a guy who sells them), but what about pixel pitch (the distance between pixels), would that almost be as important as contrast ratio as far as sharpness goes?

 

What personally annoys me has to do with sharpness. A buddy of mine bought a monitor and played games on it. The problem was his games only looked natural at 1920*1080 native resolution (it was a 21 1/2 "). When he lowered the resolution to 1600*900, it looked awful, but on a TV, it looks good no matter if it's 720p, 900p, or 1080p (talking about a 30 + " TV). Simple question, why?

 

Yes pixel pitch is important, TVs are designed to be viewed at a distance where pixel pitch is less of a concern, close up you can see the difference. As for the native resolution TVs tend to be better at scaling so they don't look so bad, they have to be or SD sources would look terrible on a HD set.

[FMod]

Except for Samsung, brands don't actually make monitors, they order a couple factories in China to put pretty much the same panel into different frames. With 3D monitors, especially so, there's very little difference in picture quality. Viewsonic is just another sticker nowadays, they're long retired from the business of even designing products.

 

Monitor contrast ratios are lies. That said, there is real data for panels. But any 3D monitor is TN panel, the worst kind of image quality. Ordinarily I'd just say the term "image quality" doesn't apply to TN panels, but on laptops it seems to be otherwise (virtually all laptops use TN panels, but Sony or Apple ones actually look like a display, while some cheap laptops deserve a "text only" sticker).

 

If you had a grand or more to drop, I could suggest some good options to look at.

[JimboUK]

You can never be sure what the hell you're going to get in a monitor or TV, that's why it's always best to go to a store and see the thing for yourself. Sharp for example make their own panels but their lower end models have Vestel garbage in them, Vestel also make panels for cheapo supermarket TVs. Samsung have some sets which contain panels made by LG, Samsung have also produced panels jointly with Sony, LG and Sony have both bought panels from Sharp.

[FMod]

Actually there's a thread on AVforums that lists exactly what you're going to get with any particular TV.

http://www.avforums.com/forums/lcd-led-lcd-tvs/1113353-lcd-matrices-differences-what-models-placed.html

 

Seeing for yourself just doesn't work. You'll see it in a bright room; like all cats are gray in the dark, so are all panels in bright light. And you don't get to test it on different material and what not. Even if you do, you don't have your measuring tools with you.

Solutions? Pick a list of potential buys, look for reviews.

[Thor.]

Sense ati does not support full true 3d like Nvidia does, i am thinking of waiting it out, although if anyone see's some amazing deals, just post here... Still tempted on buying that lg, although i would miss out on the emitters. Edited September 13, 2012 by Thor.

[JimboUK]

Actually there's a thread on AVforums that lists exactly what you're going to get with any particular TV.

http://www.avforums.com/forums/lcd-led-lcd-tvs/1113353-lcd-matrices-differences-what-models-placed.html

 

Seeing for yourself just doesn't work. You'll see it in a bright room; like all cats are gray in the dark, so are all panels in bright light. And you don't get to test it on different material and what not. Even if you do, you don't have your measuring tools with you.

Solutions? Pick a list of potential buys, look for reviews.

 

Of course you see it for yourself, you take the stores lighting into account, if the lighting in store is so bad you can't see then you go elsewhere. What's better? seeing for yourself or taking the word of a stranger? Good TVs are expensive, if I'm going to spend £1000+ on one I want to see it first. The AV forum link is good, it underlines what I said.