LED, LCD, TFT, HD... Monitors

Discussion in 'Mac Accessories' started by NStocks, Jun 9, 2010.

  1. NStocks macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Location:
    England
    #1
    So I'm in the market for a decent external monitor to acompany my 17" 2009 Macbook Pro. ALL of my work is focused around design (Architecture, Photography etc. ) so I need a monitor that will make my work look good on screen (afterall, when you spend 14 hours a day staring at it, you need good colour and contrast )

    I've being looking at monitors in the price range of £100-£200 because I'm a student and I don't have much money (plus car insurance is due) so I can't afford a expensive monitor.

    I'm somewhat confused as to which monitors are actually LED backlit which is what I want ( though my budget may not accomodate). Some monitors say LED but also LCD ,some Say TFT backlit etc. etc.

    Can somebody point me in the right direction of what 'title' I should be looking for when I want a backlit monitor like my MBP. I'm looking for a size of at least 22"...

    I realise their are already thread on this and I'm still looking at them!

    Thank You :)
     
  2. Superman07 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    #2
    I think any monitor you will buy is going to end up an LCD. The backlight itself is the part that will vary (LED v CCFL). LED isn't better per se and in some cases it may be worse - light uniformity across the display. It does have the benefit of allowing the monitor to be thinner, lighter and (usually) draw less power.

    Somebody with more production knowledge will have to chime in, but TFT is essentially a manufacturing process for the LCD panel itself. (??)

    I imagine a lot will point you towards this 22" Dell Ultrasharp. It has good color reproduction, size, pixel density and a great warranty. However, it is outside your posted price range. I don't know if Dell UK has sales on this much or if you have an outlet store (I didn't see a link), but maybe somebody more familiar with Dell UK can chime in.

    http://accessories.euro.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=uk&l=en&s=dhs&cs=ukdhs1&sku=198660
     
  3. NStocks thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Location:
    England
    #3
    yeah, I've heard good things about the dell ultrasharp, but it's not quite the design I wanted on my desk.

    Are there many monitors that come close to what properties my MBP has, like brightness sharpness and colour reproduction? I think there are a few samsung models out there, but it all depends on pricing really.

    Am I thinking of a typical LCD when I say that most non led monitors have a matte finish? I really want glossy but not sure if this is found in led products.

    Thanks
     
  4. Pixellated macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    #4
    Take a look at this. It is in the higher end of your price range but is very nice.

    Linky
     
  5. kasakka macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2008
    #5
    LED has nothing to do with glossy or matte. It's only the backlight that lits the display panel from behind so that you can actually see anything on it. What kind of surface is put on the front of the panel is up to the manufacturer. There aren't that many glossy external displays available.

    At your price range you won't get a quality monitor. You will be limited to TN panel displays that are more general use and gaming oriented. They have limited color reproduction and poor viewing angles but they are cheap. The TN panels on Macbook Pros are some of the best I've seen, but they're still noticeably worse than a proper PVA or IPS panel.

    TFT stands for thin-film transistor and it's the technology used to build LCD panels for monitors.
     
  6. NStocks thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Location:
    England
    #6
    I understand what you mean, you get what you pay for!

    I'm looking on the various thread on here, such as ' Mac setups' , 'Latest purchase' and in the Mac pheriphials too to see what other Mac user are using. I'm using CAD for 80% of my work and most of the work included in that is line work, so that's why I was looking for an LED display as these are much more crisper, but what is the closest thing to this ?

    I'm not familiar with the terms used in displays, I know my brother has a Samsung LCD 22" Matte which cost only £150. It's good qaulity but not good enough for the things I want to use it for.

    I was looking at glossy displays simply because I find them to have better contrast and saturation, plus they match my Macbook Pro finish. I'll keep looking and see what I can sell to up my budget :p

    Thanks all.
     
  7. kasakka macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2008
    #7
    There is nothing "crisper" about LED. It's just a different type of backlight. I think you're confusing this with the very high pixel density of your 17" MBP's display. Due to having high resolution but small display size, each pixel is much smaller than on a typical 24" display for example. This will make individual pixels harder to discern.

    If that is what you're looking for, you want a display that has a high resolution but small display size. As far as I know there is nothing on the market that matches the MBP's pixel density, but there are a few displays that are a bit smaller size like the Lenovo L220X (22" at 1920x1200) I have at work.
     
  8. NStocks thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Location:
    England
    #8
    I think that is probably what I'm trying to explain. Could the market have such a high display as my MBP or does it first need to work out how to do this (Apple have already done that) ?

    My Brother has this one http://www.ebuyer.com/product/164043 which has a resolution of 1920x1080 but when I viewed a PDF on it, it didn't seem very sharp at all.

    What do these mean and should I aim to get as equal or higher values? I know that cd/m2 is how the brightness is measured and 300 is probably the highest.

    300cd/m2 50000:1 Dynamic 2ms

    I'm looking it up on the internet but you could probably give me a 'better' wording for it (slighly dumbed down:p)

    Below are the options from ebuyer.com for the resolution of a screen. Would the 1920x1080 be the best?
     

    Attached Files:

    • res.PNG
      res.PNG
      File size:
      4.1 KB
      Views:
      1,829
  9. chrispholt macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Location:
    Cheddar, UK. Yes where the cheese comes from..
    #9
  10. NStocks thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Location:
    England
    #10
    Looks great, what's the cons ? I admit the design isn't appealing but the price and spec. is good enough to ignore that. Have you got that monitor?
     
  11. chrispholt macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Location:
    Cheddar, UK. Yes where the cheese comes from..
    #11

    I don't have one.
    I was just looking for a monitor, In the same shoes as you.
    I have decided to go with this one http://www.ebuyer.com/product/164043 As it has a higher contrast ratio and faster response time. It also looks very nice.

    I dont think that the high resolution will be that practical for my needs as I do a lot of photography and computing next year. It may cause strain on your eyes.
     
  12. NStocks thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Location:
    England
    #12
    My Brother has the exact same one, and it's now reduced in price!

    Wouldn't photography need a High Res screen? I also do photography and my MBP is absolutley amazing for Photo editing.

    I viewed a PDF on the monitor above and I didn't find the overall quality to be that impressive, but this could be to do with it being on a PC and a different(lower) graphics card?

    If your on a Mac could you post a screen shot so I can see the resolution ?

    Thank You
     
  13. NStocks thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Location:
    England
    #13
    http://www.ebuyer.com/product/174584 (which has a 70:000 contract ratio rather than 50:000) or the one posted above seem to be the best so far.

    Samsung sure do make a few monitors ! And sell a ton of them too, plus people seem to be very happy with them :)
    The samsung monitors I've looked at are 1900x1080,on 22", 23" and 24". Does this mean that they all have the same resolution even though their is a 2" difference in screen size ?

    Is it better to go from HDMI to Mini Displayport? Does VGA/DVI to Mini Displayport have a less better quality, personally I would have though it does. I will be going HDMI anyway as the connectors are better.
     
  14. kasakka macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2008
    #14
    We probably won't see anything like that. To have the same pixel density as the 17" MBP, you'd need a display with a resolution higher than 2560x1600 at 24". It just isn't going to happen and would be very expensive.

    brightness, dynamic contrast ratio, response time. The dynamic contrast ratio is a ******** marketing term mostly and should be just plain ignored. Lower response time should mean less "ghosting" aka motion blur in moving images but in reality the reported times can be for various things: transition from gray to gray color for a pixel, or from black to white. In reality the response time varies based on what the color changes are. You can safely ignore this value in most cases too because most displays sold today are fast enough.

    I would avoid 16:9 ratio displays for computer use because they have less vertical space on the display. Most programs use more vertical than horizontal space. Go for something with 1920x1200 resolution.

    Yes, same resolution. The smaller the display the smaller the pixels will be at the same resolution, so the 22" will seem a bit sharper but at the expense of display size. Personally I prefer 24" at that resolution.

    DVI and HDMI are the same when it comes to video signal. Don't get a display with only a VGA connector. That's just cheap crap.
     
  15. Ace134blue macrumors 6502a

    Ace134blue

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    #15
    If i were in your shoes, would go with either of these 2 acer monitors. They are both 21.5 in 1920x1080 so both are very sharp. The first one is the cheapest, and while the 2nd one is more expensive(not much) is has better contrast ratio. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...19&cm_re=acer_21.5_lcd-_-24-009-219-_-Product or http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...28&cm_re=acer_21.5_lcd-_-24-009-228-_-Product. Acer, in my experience is very good; especially for the price.
    Also, dont get mixed up with dynamic contrast and true contrast. true contrast is the most important thing to look at. No, using adapters for your display port does not affect quality, it does however increase latency. Hdmi arent necessarily better, sorta pointless unless you require audio going through it. Best to stick to dvi imo
     
  16. NStocks thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Location:
    England
    #16
    I'd love to have one at that resolution but the good ones start from £270... I want to spend less than £200 because I need a Apple BT keyboard and MStand.

    I see what you mean when you say that 1900x1080 has a less vertical size. 1920x1200 looks much much better but it's a little expensive.

    Thank You
     
  17. NStocks thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Location:
    England
    #17
    US! I'm in the UK but thats for looking :)
     
  18. chrispholt macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Location:
    Cheddar, UK. Yes where the cheese comes from..
    #18

    Thanks, I might get that one instead. I cannot post a picture as I have not bough tit yet.


    Just found this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DV0dXoxNENY Its a CNET review on the monitor.

    Also I higer resolution would make it sharper, but also everything would be smaller. I would not want this eye strain. Or maybe I am wrong and it would look great?
     
  19. NStocks thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Location:
    England
    #19
    I want to know this too.
     
  20. RubbishBBspeed macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2009
    #20
    Throwing out a curve ball here but when checking the extra footage of the latest harry potter film, there is a section on the editing of the movie. You get to see a close up of the kit the guy uses, I noted the monitor was sony (no sign of a mac in sight). Now it could well have been a sony monitor due to contractual agreements but if not then it's worth a look. If it's good enough for blockbuster movie editing the i guess it's good enough for any of us. And from what I can make out it's an off the shelf display too.
     
  21. kasakka macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2008
    #21
    Yes. The smaller the pixels the smaller everything is on the screen. Until OSX starts supporting resolution independent scaling you have to choose a display based on what feels comfortable. The OP seems to like small but sharp images. I on the other hand feel the 17" MBP is hard on the eyes because everything is so small.
     
  22. NStocks thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Location:
    England
    #22
    I have certinally got use to using a 17" Screen, coming from a 26" TV powered by my old PC (3 years ago) But now I'm on my Dad's PC using the same 26" screen and like it a lot! I'm still debating wether to pay extra and get the 1920x1200 as it has a more appealing aspect ratio... I may buy a HDMI to MDP and try out my Brother monitor, which is similar to the ones I've mentioned only at 22" instead of 24".

    PS I'm on a PC as my Mac has been sent away for repair... coming up to the 4th week now:(
     
  23. NStocks thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Location:
    England
    #23
    Ok, I think I will spend the extra money and possibly buy a 1920x1200. I've used by Brother's 1920x1080 and the vertical space is not very useful. I've looked on ebuyer again but I can't seem to find the £250 (ish) priced one.

    Does anybody know of a Samsung 1920x1200 monitor that is around £250 and good design?

    Thank You
     
  24. kasakka macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2008
    #24
    I don't recommend limiting yourself to Samsungs. There isn't anything special about them.
     
  25. NStocks thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Location:
    England
    #25
    Ture but other brands are either too expensive or badly designed (ugly). I doubt I will find a good 1920x1200 for under £250, so it looks like the 1920x1080 will have to do.
     

Share This Page