Help me choose a monitor

Discussion in 'Mac Accessories' started by south8212, Feb 6, 2009.

  1. south8212 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2008
    #1
    Im looking for a new monitor. I have decided on the 3 to choose between. Im going to be doing mostly browsing, design (ps, dw), watching movies etc.. Looking for one around 400 and over 24 inches. Please give me your suggestions on which to buy. Machine is the one in the sig. Thanks

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824254026&Tpk=HG281DPB

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001281&Tpk=t260hd

    http://www.amazon.com/W2408H-24-inc...1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1233935365&sr=1-1
     
  2. Tomorrow macrumors 604

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
  3. south8212 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2008
    #3
    thanks for your suggestions. The third has no dvi either. I am going to stay away form number 2 because of the price. Number 1 and 2 have the same res and are around the same price but one is 28" and the other 24" is there anything else you see between the two?
     
  4. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #4
    1920x1200 is the native resolution of a 24" monitor. 26" and 28" just stretches it, and may look grainy to you.

    Why not consider a 24", and either save some cash, or stay at your budget and get a better model in that size?
     
  5. Tomorrow macrumors 604

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
    #5
    +1 to that - for many people, larger pixels = grainy image. I have known some people with "middle-age vision" who prefer the larger pixels, knock on wood I'm not there just yet.
     
  6. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #6
    I may not be that far off. :eek: :D :p
     
  7. KnightWRX macrumors Pentium

    KnightWRX

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Location:
    Quebec, Canada
    #7
    Just a clarification, it's still native resolution on 26" and 28" inch models. If that is what the panel's native resolution is, that's what it is. Stretching a resolution will cause blurriness, and I'm sure those monitors aren't blurry at all.

    The thing that makes it look grainy is the drop in PPI (pixels per inch). Even going to a 24" monitor, the pixels are much larger than on a Macbook screen for example.
     
  8. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #8
    I understand what your saying, and technically, Yes, it is.

    The difference is in the pitch size (pixel for LCD). Essentially the same thing as dot pitch on a CRT. It increases as the panel size increases for a given resolution, producing what I referred to as "grainy appearance". I've seen it myself, and have noticed many comments on various forums. I sort of equate it with non native resolutions, as it has an effect on the image quality.

    I should have been more clear. Sorry :eek:
     
  9. wakerider017 macrumors 68000

    wakerider017

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2006
    Location:
    US of A
    #9
    What you are seeing is larger pixels, called Pixel Pitch... Completely different than native resolution.

    You can see an excellent example of this by looking at a pixel on a computer monitor, then go look at a pixel on a 52" LCD TV.

    The Pixel Pitch on the 28" Hanns is .309mm while on a 24" Acer it is .270mm
     
  10. spaceballl macrumors 68030

    spaceballl

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #10
    I will do what I always do and recommend the Dell SP2309W. It's a 23 incher with a higher resolution than a 24"er. 2048x1150. Check it out - it's in your price range. I love mine.
     
  11. wakerider017 macrumors 68000

    wakerider017

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2006
    Location:
    US of A
    #11
    That's an odd resolution... I would not particularly recommend going with that resolution.

    Full HD 1080 video content plays in the resolution 1920 X 1080. Most 24" monitors come in the res 1920 X 1200 which is a perfect pixel match with small black bars on top and bottom since it is a 16:10 aspect ratio vs the standard 16:9. Some stuff is shot in anamorphic, but that just means larger bars. Still perfect pixel match up.

    When you go beyond 1920 pixels the video content has to stretch it self to fill those extra pixels. Much like when you stretch a youtube movie to fill the entire screen.

    I think the 1920 X 1200 resolution is all around awesome right now.
     
  12. KnightWRX macrumors Pentium

    KnightWRX

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Location:
    Quebec, Canada
    #12
    It's not a movie watching resolution, it's a work resolution. It lets you fit two 1024 wide windows side by side. Essentially, it's like having 2 1024x768 monitors side by side, with some extra vertical space.

    And stretching a movie isn't so bad, otherwise 720p and lower resolution videos would look like absolute garbage on 1900x1200 monitors. DVD still looks fine, even though it's being stretched, the pixelisation isn't noticeable if you back up a litte.
     

Share This Page