So I'm considering getting a bigger monitor...

[Darren Dirt]

1 LG Flatron L226WTX-BN 22in Widescreen LCD w- DVI, 5ms, 30001 Contrast, Black - Memory Express
$269.95


2 Acer AL2216Wbd 22in Widescreen LCD w- DVI, 5ms, Black - Memory Express
$269.96


3 BenQ FP222WH 22in Widescreen LCD w- DVI, HDMI, 5ms, Black ($269_95 After $10 Instant Rebate 8-7-8-31) - Memory Express
$269.95


As you can see, all 3 of these are $269.95, and the specs all seem virtually identical, except the LG has 3000:1 contrast instead of 700:1 (although it says "Digital Contrast" ?? )

So do any of you hardware geeks have any thoughts as to the quality of picture, durability, etc. of any of these brands?

Also when it says "Native Resolution: 1680 x 1050" (all 3 say this) does that mean that if I try to go higher, like 1600 x 1200 , that it will "pan" the extra pixels, or will it just not work?

...I also wonder if M.E. has the best prices right now, considering it's "Back To School" time -- anyone else looking at hardware prices this month?

[Mr. Analog]

As with any piece of computer hardware you must consider what you use your monitor for the most. If you are a gamer and response time is a factor for you you will have to consider that. If you can't tell the difference between 4 ms and 8 ms response time while reading /. then it won't matter.

One thing that I've had to deal with recently is the colour balance / brightness of my current monitor and how it affects my artwork. I can't see colour so good but I know when things are too dark or too light and recently I've been questioning whether or not my colouring is too dark and whether I've been going to extremes in terms of colour depth. I look on my monitor and everything is nice and brilliant. I look at it on my work monitor or on the Wii browser and it seems dark to me. Other problems I can work around for the most part, I mean the first big problem I had with it is that it's native resolution. While beautiful for games and video it really blows it for reading. I upped my fonts to Windows Extra Large AND I changed my OS dpi and I still have to Alt+Scroll when reading stuff on the world wide weeb.

The final thing is that you know all those great YouTube videos and standard def DVDs you have? Prepare to be annoyed by artifacts and other blemishes. Granted there is a lot of video content out there that is encoded at a nice high resolution but there is an overwhelming amount of stuff recorded at low resolutions which might look fine on a 1024x768 display but look like ass at higher res.

Other than those few niggling details, and I'm picky with monitors, getting a new fangled high-res B-I-G sub-$500 monitor is a satisfying experience.

[Tom]

Also when it says "Native Resolution: 1680 x 1050" (all 3 say this) does that mean that if I try to go higher, like 1600 x 1200 , that it will "pan" the extra pixels, or will it just not work?

Generally, it just doesn't work. You can however set a smaller mode if that's your thing. Though it'll just use some built in scaler chip that may or may not make the image look like ass.

[Lazybones]

Panning is a function of your video card NOT the monitor, you will need to check your cards driver documentation if it supports panning at higher res.

LCDs ONLY look clear at their native resolution, running lower than native res always adds a bit of blur to everything as the software interpolates the resolution. However some do better than others and it also depends if you set it in proper multipules of the native.

[Mr. Analog]

I found that my video was stretched to meet the lower res requirements and that it only looks good at it's native res with the larger font settings.

Again, they're not all the same when you go over to Best Buy (or wherever you're purchasing from eventually that has them on display) take a look at a few websites (etc) that you frequent using that monitor if you can to see what they look like. Then check what contrast / brightness settings they have the monitor set to. If everything looks good then go for it.

[Darren Dirt]

Also when it says "Native Resolution: 1680 x 1050" (all 3 say this) does that mean that if I try to go higher, like 1600 x 1200 , that it will "pan" the extra pixels, or will it just not work?

Generally, it just doesn't work. You can however set a smaller mode if that's your thing. Though it'll just use some built in scaler chip that may or may not make the image look like ass.

My specific need, part of the reason I'm thinking of going up from my 19incher, is to 4-table poker games -- which is perfect no-overlap at 1600x1200.

Plus I do an awful lot of surfing while watching a Youtube video at the same time, so in that case 1600x1050 would be just fine. But it's mainly the ability to have 1600x1200 without any panning. :-\

[Mr. Analog]

Also when it says "Native Resolution: 1680 x 1050" (all 3 say this) does that mean that if I try to go higher, like 1600 x 1200 , that it will "pan" the extra pixels, or will it just not work?

Generally, it just doesn't work. You can however set a smaller mode if that's your thing. Though it'll just use some built in scaler chip that may or may not make the image look like ass.

My specific need, part of the reason I'm thinking of going up from my 19incher, is to 4-table poker games -- which is perfect no-overlap at 1600x1200.

Plus I do an awful lot of surfing while watching a Youtube video at the same time, so in that case 1600x1050 would be just fine. But it's mainly the ability to have 1600x1200 without any panning. :-\

In that you are safe, just make sure the text is readable...

[Thorin]

You'll have trouble finding 1600x1200 LCD monitors, as they're all going widescreen (16:9 aspect ratio) now, and 1600x1200 is the old 4:3 aspect ratio.

And I second (or third) the opinion that the LCD monitors only look good at their native resolutions.

[Melbosa]

Agreed Native Rez is the only way to utilize a LCD monitor.

[Mr. Analog]

Agreed Native Rez is the only way to utilize a LCD monitor.

Well, without permanently fuzzing your eyes out...

FYI, I have a 16:9 ratio and I love it!

[Cova]

Definitely run native resolution.

As for what res to get - I wouldn't get anything that can't do at least 1600x1200 either (though for different reasons).  You can get it on a 4:3 aspect monitor, eg the two HP L2035 LCD's on my desk at work are 16x12 native res monitors.  Or in a wide-screen you'd actually be looking for a 16:10 aspect, which is fairly common for monitors that do 1920x1200 - thereby providing enough screen space to display a 1600x1200 resolution PC desktop, or a 1920x1080 1080p HD video, both without any scaling.

[Darren Dirt]

Hmmm... Looks to be a difficult task to find a non-widescreen monitor over 20inches... Futureshop.ca also a no-go.

But I found THIS on Dell's website...

Samsung SyncMaster 204B 20.1 in Black Flat Panel LCD Monitor with Height Adjustable Stand ($309 - $20rebate)


It says "Maximum" is 1600x1200, I wonder if that is its "default"? :-\
(strangely, on the Memory Express website it seems like 204b is missing, but they have 203b and 205b )

[Mr. Analog]

I think when they say maximum res that is also the native res.

Is 4:3 that important?

[Thorin]

I think at least 1600x1200 is super-important for him.  1600x1200 is possible on a 4:3 ratio monitor.  The closest he could get on a 16:10 monitor would be 1920x1200, on a 16:9 it'd be 2134x1200.  Those latter two would get more expensive...

[Ustauk]

Could you throw in an old PCI video card and run your existing monitor with another one?