Help finding new Monitor please.

MBGraphics

MBGraphics

VIP Member
Hey guys, I'm new to this forum, I joined because I wanted to get your opinions on which monitor I should get.

I also have a question for you.

is it better to have a higher contrast ratio (like 3000:1) or a lower (like 1000:1)?

My budget on this tops off at 400 (U.S. Dollars) and I would like a 22 inch widescreen.

I'll be using it for Gaming, Graphic design, Lots of pictures since im a photographer(just for fun, nothing special:) ), web surfing, lots of multi-tasking.

I hope this info helps you to help me on what monitor I should get, I thank you in advance on any help.

Thanks,
Mike
 
For the contrast ratios, in a big screen like a 28" to 30" I can't really notice the difference between 1000:1 and 800:1, they both look equally as good to me. I'm not sure about the smaller 22" monitors.
 
You know, I have noticed the same thing. I went to Frys Electronics the other day to check some out, one was a 700:1 and one was a 3000:1, and I noticed only a SLIGHT difference (same company as well)

but im pretty sure the ms count is more noticable (espacially for gamming)

Any suggestions?

Thanks,
Mike
 
The contrast ratio effectively measures the variance between the darkest color and the lightest, a transition, in a split second. It's not the most noticeable feature, especially when comparing two monitors that have respectable ratios. The response timing is an LCD monitors version of the VRR, or vertical refresh rate. It effectively portrays how fast the liquid crystals can change from one image to the next, completely. Many people believe you need a very low timing, like 2 ms, to get the best picture, but anything beneath 12ms is fine. Most monitor have 8 or 5ms response times, while remaining cheap, so a low timing is not hard to come by.
 
hermeslyre said:
The contrast ratio effectively measures the variance between the darkest color and the lightest, a transition, in a split second. It's not the most noticeable feature, especially when comparing two monitors that have respectable ratios. The response timing is an LCD monitors version of the VRR, or vertical refresh rate. It effectively portrays how fast the liquid crystals can change from one image to the next, completely. Many people believe you need a very low timing, like 2 ms, to get the best picture, but anything beneath 12ms is fine. Most monitor have 8 or 5ms response times, while remaining cheap, so a low timing is not hard to come by.
Click to expand...

This is pretty much entirely wrong, Hermeslyre has been misinformed. A contrast ratio has nothing to do with a "split second" or any time or speed at all. Basically, for example, a contrast ratio of 700:1 means a white pixel the monitor displays will be 700 times brighter than a black pixel (LCD monitors can't display true black or white yet). If a monitor could display either true black or true white, the contrast ratio would be infinite. Sony is about to release a TV which claims a contrast ratio of 1,000,000:1.

Which brings me to my second point: contrast ratios, contrary to what Hermeslyre said, are a completely ineffective measurement. There's no global or third-party rating system. The manufacturers can put whatever they want on the box. More reading is here:

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/spec-wars/contrast-ratio-shoot+out-everyone-loses-259495.php

As for response times, please know that they are completely independent of the monitor's refresh rate. I repeat, a monitor's response time has absolutely NOTHING to do with its refresh rate or frame rate. Rather, a response is the ability of each individual pixel to change from one state to the next. Some manufacturers will measure on-to-off times, some black-to-white, and some gray-to-gray. As with contrast ratio, this system is almost entirely ineffective and isn't monitored. Manufacturers can again legally tell you whatever they like.

And as for your original question that no one really answered, a 3000:1 contrast ratio is in theory better than 1000:1. Larger numbers are better here (in theory).
 
Thank you very much for taking the time to correct, and thouroghly explain all this (and the link :) )

Any suggestions on a good 22 inch widescreen for under $400 though?
 
I got the LG L226WTQ (3000:1 / 2ms) at best buy on sale for $300 even, but i don't think its on sale anymore. I love it. The reason i don't recommend Samsung 22" monitors are because you never know what LCD panel your going to get, you want a "S" panel but you have just as much of a chance getting one of the others that are pure junk.

Also the lower response time is better for gaming, it helps eliminate "ghosting" with fast movements or explsions. The best way for me to explain the contrast ratio is like this, 3000:1 for example means a white pixel can be 3000 times brighter than a black pixel, which is also better for gaming..

EDIT: i didn't see, fortyways already explained what the contrast ratio means.
 
Thanks thatguy16, I have heard of this "s" pannel thing, but if you DO get an "s" is it as good as, or better than the LG, or any other 22 inch widescreen in that price range?
 
MBGraphics said:
Thanks thatguy16, I have heard of this "s" pannel thing, but if you DO get an "s" is it as good as, or better than the LG, or any other 22 inch widescreen in that price range?
Click to expand...



IF you were to get a S panel, i would say they are both good. I love mine, i think the LG has slightly better specs, i think.
 
fortyways said:
This is pretty much entirely wrong, Hermeslyre has been misinformed. A contrast ratio has nothing to do with a "split second" or any time or speed at all. Basically, for example, a contrast ratio of 700:1 means a white pixel the monitor displays will be 700 times brighter than a black pixel (LCD monitors can't display true black or white yet). If a monitor could display either true black or true white, the contrast ratio would be infinite. Sony is about to release a TV which claims a contrast ratio of 1,000,000:1.

Which brings me to my second point: contrast ratios, contrary to what Hermeslyre said, are a completely ineffective measurement. There's no global or third-party rating system. The manufacturers can put whatever they want on the box. More reading is here:

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/spec-wars/contrast-ratio-shoot+out-everyone-loses-259495.php

As for response times, please know that they are completely independent of the monitor's refresh rate. I repeat, a monitor's response time has absolutely NOTHING to do with its refresh rate or frame rate. Rather, a response is the ability of each individual pixel to change from one state to the next. Some manufacturers will measure on-to-off times, some black-to-white, and some gray-to-gray. As with contrast ratio, this system is almost entirely ineffective and isn't monitored. Manufacturers can again legally tell you whatever they like.

And as for your original question that no one really answered, a 3000:1 contrast ratio is in theory better than 1000:1. Larger numbers are better here (in theory).
Click to expand...

There are different types of contrast ratios, a static contrast ratio IS a measurement of time, that of an instant. 1000:1 measurement could be a monitors static contrast ratio, while it could have a 3000:1 dynamic contrast ratio, a ratio that it is able to produce over a longer time, by darkening the backlight, and through other means.

The VRR and response timings are different, like you said. But they measure the same thing, the time in which an image can be painted onto the screen. Response timing will replace the VRR as LCD monitors have no need for a refresh rate, yet video cards and the like still use frame buffers based around the VRR. Which was what I was getting at..

The question that no one really answered is difficult. You yourself said the contrast ratio is an ineffective measurement, that 3000:1 ratio could very well be the dynamic ratio..
 
hermeslyre said:
There are different types of contrast ratios, a static contrast ratio IS a measurement of time, that of an instant. (...)
The VRR and response timings are different, like you said. But they measure the same thing, the time in which an image can be painted onto the screen. (...)

The question that no one really answered is difficult. You yourself said the contrast ratio is an ineffective measurement, that 3000:1 ratio could very well be the dynamic ratio..
Click to expand...

I don't mean to be blunt, but you are very wrong. Even judging by its name, it's obvious that a "static" contrast ratio has nothing to do with timing. A "dynamic" contrast ratio is just a marketing tool employed first by Samsung. For instance, its 6BW series advertises a 2000-3000:1 contrast ratio which in the fine print is "dynamic." The actual contrast ratio there is 800:1.

A contrast ratio is how many times brighter the whitest pixel is in comparison to the darkest pixel. There's nothing more to it.

As for the response time, I repeat myself, for the third time now, a response time has NOTHING to do with how fast an image can be painted on the screen. A response time measures a single individual pixel's ability to move from one arbitrary state to another arbitrary state (GTG, etc.).

And, as for his question, I don't think it was difficult. Unless I'm wrong, he was simply asking if bigger numbers are better or if smaller numbers are better. I personally think this should have been pretty easily inferred from both his original question and from my response to it.
 
ThatGuy16 said:
IF you were to get a S panel, i would say they are both good. I love mine, i think the LG has slightly better specs, i think.
Click to expand...

The response time of the LG is superior. The LG has a true response time of 2ms while the Samsung has 5ms and uses "RTA overdrive" to achieve a 2ms effect. This is effective, but in a lot of situations (depending on the colors on the screen) creates a horrible "halo effect," which is a bright color surrounding fast-moving objects. More reading here:

http://andrewswihart.net/blog/review-samsung-226bw-lcd-c-panel
 
"a response time has NOTHING to do with how fast an image can be painted on the screen."

I didn't mean to imply that it was NOW, but later, regardless of the fact that the timing measures active to inactive (black to white), or active to inactive to active. The fact of the matter is, as I see it, response time is the closest thing an LCD display has to the refresh rate, and since the technology that brought about the refresh rate is obsolete, so will the refresh rate be. At this point the response timing will be the defining factor in the evaluation of screen rendering. Until then it remains the VRR, obviously.

It doesn't matter that the dynamic contrast ratio is a gimmick, it is there, it is used, and it is representation of the contrast ratio over a period of time. While the static contrast ratio is instantaneous. This is not incorrect, It's fact.

You state both bigger is better, and looks can be deceiving. You cannot say that a 3000:1 contrast ratio is better than a 1000:1; they could be comparing two totally incompatible measurements. How can a 3000:1 monitor (real 800:1) be better than the 1000:1?
 
I said bigger was better in theory. That was his original question: if, in theory, an advertised 3000:1 is superior, in theory, to an advertised 1000:1. He just wanted to know which way the measurement system worked, i.e. if a smaller number is what you'd look for (like 2ms is better than 5ms), or a bigger number.

And refresh rates aren't obsolete because vertical sync in games locks the FPS to the refresh rate. In this aspect, an LCD with a max refresh rate of 75Hz would be superior to an LCD with a max refresh rate of 60Hz.

I never implied that a monitor with an advertised 3000:1 contrast ratio offers any more real-world performance than one with 1000:1. I don't even acknowledge the contrast ratio when purchasing a monitor.
 
Vertical sync isn't required enabled to lock the FPS to the monitors VRR. Every monitor that uses VRR technology is capable of rendering only as many frames as the refresh rate, for obvious reasons, regardless of what Fraps (or whatever) tells you. Vertical sync merely forces the display adapter to buffer at VRR level; to remove the chance of the monitor "tearing", or a mish-mash with the frames. This is yet another reason I believe The refresh rate is obsolete, and should be abandoned; If you remove the refresh rate, and dispense with the tech that to it is essential, you'll be left with the response time being the only bottleneck, and what a bottleneck it'll be, many times more responsive.

The rest we'll have to disagree upon. Theory doesn't mean alot with such miserly companies calling the big shots. You might as well be guessing. :D
 
Last edited:
hermeslyre said:
Vertical sync isn't required enabled to lock the FPS to the monitors VRR. Every monitor that uses VRR technology is capable of rendering only as many frames as the refresh rate, for obvious reasons, regardless of what Fraps (or whatever) tells you. Vertical sync merely forces the display adapter to buffer at VRR level; to remove the chance of the monitor "tearing", or a mish-mash with the frames. This is yet another reason I believe The refresh rate is obsolete, and should be abandoned; If you remove the refresh rate, and dispense with the tech that to it is essential, you'll be left with the response time being the only bottleneck, and what a bottleneck it'll be, many times more responsive.

The rest we'll have to disagree upon. Theory doesn't mean alot with such miserly companies calling the big shots. You might as well be guessing. :D
Click to expand...

We'll agree to disagree then. Your theory about VRR is reasonable and arguable but I don't think a thread where someone is looking for advice on purchasing a monitor in the here-and-now is the place for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top