So, there are those shiny new dirt cheap 22'' TFT displays. Like, €270 or so. Does anybody have one of those? Are they worth buying or are they crap? For comparison, right now I have a 17'' Samsung TFT (very good) and a 19'' Gericom TFT (OK but not great). Together they cost me over €1100 a few years ago and they work fine. But then, such a big ass display with high resolution would be cool IMHO. Are the cheap ones today comparable to medium expensive ones from times past? Just FYI, there is not one broken pixel on either and even tho they have both 25 ms reaction time I have yet to see a smear or something. Would I regret going cheaper and bigger?
If you are happy with your current screens, and do a lot of graphics work, maybe wait a few months to see how much 24" displays come down. I have one of the Dell 24" displays at work (actually on it now) and they are incredibly awesome. Also have the benefit of supporting full high definition (1080p) resolution.
Ooh, that reminds me. I have a 22" on order. Large-screen, large-resolution monitors are fantastic. The only real drawback is that flaws such as ghosting become more evident. You may need better cabling, too.
I've had a 20 inch Formac for about 3 or 4 years and it's awesome. For monitors it's not just the less than 25ms response you want to look at, also look for good contrast ratio, (1000:1 is an ordinary CRT for example.) so greater is better. Also a wide viewing angle. And especially now 1080p capability would be very desirable. Which means a native rez of (approx) 1900x1200 (can't remember the exact spec) Oh and digital all the way. If it's an analogue connection expect a blurrier picture. And don't forget, if you run Visa it's going to need to be HDCP (DRM) capable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDCP
Yes, sadly HDCP is something you may need to watch out for with Blu-ray / HD-DVD on your PC. It's possible it could be used on other DRM-encrusted videos as well, but I hope not. Anyway, worst case scenario is without HDCP your stuff gets sent to your monitor as a DVD-quality signal rather than in HD quality. Anyway, personally I'm saying fuck HD-DVD and Blu-ray DVD. Eventually, I'm sure I'll be more or less forced to get one or the other (that is if I want to keep buying videos). But until then, I'm going to try to keep away from it. Sinister thing about HDCP is that discs that are printed following an exploit being discovered can "turn off" the HDCP compatibility for your devices. For example, let's say you buy a nice juicy 500 dollar video card supporting HDCP, and a nice monitor to go with it, along with a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD player and some player software. NOW, if some hackers find out ways to use ANY of those parts to produce copies, the "offending" products can be marked on the discs. Then, that disc will no longer play in full quality, it will revert to the lower non-HDCP quality. So basically, if any of the peices that you own, and are using legally are used by someone to copy stuff, then YOU get screwed out of your full quality signal (if the movie company so chooses). Manufacturers claim that they will not use HDCP for a couple more years... probably don't want to piss off everyone who just bought a "non-HDCP" HDTV... they'll wait till later to do that. Of course, all analysis indicates that this will not help deter hackers and pirates at all... and despite not even being released, it has already been cracked by various groups and individuals. So basically, HDCP is only going to fuck over the honest consumer only and confuse buyers, while doing virtually nothing to stop piracy. Let's hope those fucking jokers wise up and NEVER enable HDCP. Another side note, directed to Reno Floyd's comment about DVI vs Analog input: I agree, get DVI if possible, most nice monitors will use DVI anyway. HOWEVER, if your video card doesn't support it (or if you are like me, you have 2 monitors and only 1 DVI port (and 1 analog) ) then you shouldn't worry too much. I run my older 1280x1024 LCD on analog and my 20.1" widescreen on DVI and I can honestly say there is no difference in signal quality. I'm using an ATI part though, through a real analog port (not a dvi + adapter ). I have heard nvidia's analog is lower quality. I agree with Reno, get DVI. However if it means paying a lot more (aka new video card), then I wouldn't worry too much about it.
Yes, DVI is a must, IMO. I have a 19" widescreen viewsonic and I love it. I am however upgrading to a 22" Viewsonic/Samsung/Acer/BenQ (not sure which one yet, probably whatever is cheapest at the time). I couldn't imagine not running with a non-widescreen monitor anymore... same goes for my TV. I've not seen any ghosting and 1440x900 is great for 19". But now that the 22s are down around the same price as when I bought my 19, I'll definately leap to one soon.
