I'm going to get a 24" HD monitor

Dell 2409. Dell always has one of the highest rated monitors on the market.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I've been looking at this one:

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00213QXFA/ref=ord_cart_shr?_encoding=UTF8&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&v=glance"]Amazon.com: Samsung SyncMaster 2333HD HDTV Widescreen LCD Monitor (Glossy Black): Computer & Accessories[/ame]


It's 23" but I've heard good things, and I imagine there is a comparable 24" model.

 

The link works in your quote, not sure why it screwed up in my OP.

I am pretty sure it can work with the PS3. Not sure about the refresh rate thing though.

 

Well one thing I can add is that since this is a gaming monitor from what I have read both the 360 and PS3 output video at a max of 60HZ so no need to worry about having 120Hz just for gaming. I mean if you have a tv you want and its cheap sure go for the 120Hz it could help with motion blurring but it won't be a big difference. Otherwise 120Hz shouldn't be a deal breaker a 60Hz will do fine. Now I've also read that 120Hz makes Blu-ray videos look superb...so you have to weigh all this. From what I know 5ms is really good but I don't know if its equivalent to 120Hz but I am guessing not because I believe they're two different things.


Now go ahead Stitches tell me how I'm wrong here.


Okay edit since you peaked my interest:

So I did some research and it appears that refresh rate and response time are two separate things and response time can't directly transfer to response rate. However both have an affect on clarity and motion blurring. Anyway from what I read the important thing to note is that no a 5ms response time can't equate to 120HZ directly but having a good response time can help make up for not having 120HZ. Now once again 120Hz vs. 60Hz isn't a huge deal except that 120Hz can handle Blu-Ray movies better.

Anyway to stop my rant, read over to this thread at the AVS forums to get a better picture:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=841160

 

I don't know about being wrong, but I couldn't care less about 60 hz vs 120 hz vs 240 hz.

 

This is the correct position. 120Hz and 240Hz means that the TV is digitally processing the signal it's getting and adding additional frames into the displayed image. 120Hz means twice as many frames, 240Hz means four times as many frames. It's nice for movies, but for games, you generally don't want it. (Think input lag.)

Clark, just keep in mind that when you buy a lower-priced monitor (lower-priced meaning around $300 or less) you're getting a low-quality display panel to go with that, normally what's called a TN (Twisted Nematic) panel. They have the fastest response times of all LCD panels, but the worst color reproduction and viewing angles.

If you're only going to look at the display head-on (meaning, no buddies over to play Army of Two or Halo 3 co-op or anything like that) then you can go ahead and buy something like the Dell ST2410. It has HDMI-HDCP input (most everything has HDCP these days, by the way) and it's pretty affordable for the amount of screen you're getting. Plus its native resolution is exactly 1920x1080, aka 1080p, not 1920x1200 as used to be the standard on such large PC displays.

If you'd like to get a higher-quality panel, you'll pay at least double that, but you get what you pay for in terms of color quality, deeper blacks, etc. For strictly gaming, it's not really necessary, but it's nice.

 

Which reminds me Desides when you say input lag are you talking about like double cross hairs for FPS?

I watched a video a month or so back comparing 60Hz and 120Hz for gaming and although 120Hz helped some for blurring (not much actually) it caused certain oddities like double cross hairs etc.

I'm just curious that's all.

 

Yea, I should've stated what I was looking for was strictly for a PC monitor (web surfing, watching a few TV shows online, working spreadsheets and office docs, and maybe an older PC game every now and then). Plus I use my work laptop more than anything, so don't mind getting a sub $300 monitor. The TV tuner built in on the one I was considering was a bonus as well.

 

That sounds more like ghosting, which is when images appear to drag or linger on the display during motion. Input lag is different: it's when the display doesn't keep up with you.

Let me explain it this way: let's say you're playing Halo 3, and all of a sudden someone's shooting you from behind. You move the analog stick to turn around, but the display doesn't immediately move; there's a slight pause between when you hit the analog stick and when the image moves. That's input lag. When the image moves, and you see two crosshairs on the screen, that's ghosting.

Ghosting happens because the individual pixels can't change color fast enough to display the updated information being fed to them by the signal; input lag is when the television delays getting that signal to the pixels in the first place.

 

It all boils down to what your budget is and what your eyes can tolerate.

Don't let yourself be influenced too much by that. You can buy USB TV tuners for a few dozen bucks.

 

Got ya and now that you mention I've read about people complaining of that when they are playing in online matches.

Once again thanks for the info.

 

Well I'm not being influenced (much) by it, as I don't think I would buy a USB tuner at all.

And my budget has to be under $300 since I don't use my PC more than 20% of the time that I am on a computer.

If I really wanted to be cheap, I could run a vga or dvi cable to one of my TVs.

 

ST2410.

 

My only note would be that if you are using this strictly for gaming then I would drop back to 22 inches at most and maybe back to 20. You can still find 1080P monitors for that size and it seems to be the sweet spot for pure gaming. The smaller screen gives your eyes less info to process and you tend to play better at a smaller screen size then a very large one. The MLG guys wont use anything over 22..... I play on a 20 inch wide-screen and its WAY better then the 30 inch TV I used to play on. I will never voluntarily game on anything large then 20 inches for the rest of my days.

 

I will never voluntarily game on anything under 42" for the rest of my days (and hopefully I never have to go under the 61" I am using now).

 

There's a big difference between competitive, tournament-style professional gaming and casual gaming at home.

 

I will never be a pro but if you are playing multi player FPS I find its much more fun to be able to kill stuff as much as possible, and playing on a smaller screen certainly helps with that. A lot.

 

I'm chalking that up as an opinion, I have never had any trouble performing very well on a "large" tv.

And multiplayer FPS' are only like 10% of the games I play, so it would be silly to pick a TV based on that (for me).

 

Personal preferences aren't the same for everyone, though. That's why they're personal. Someone wants a larger screen, more power to 'em. If they don't like it, they can take it back and get something else.

But really, MLG is a totally different environment than the routine cannon fodder on Xbox Live. What works for tournament gamers doesn't necessarily work for a guy who comes home from a long day and wants to shoot at 12 year olds named Mister Chef, Nathan's Drake, or Lara's Left Boob.

 

i just got this monitor and it works well with my pc and ps3. it's a little bright out of the box, but if you calibrate it, it comes out good. has two hdmi slots:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009206

also it's a matte screen, so it's not shiny.

 

Hum LED is it all that it's supposed to be?

Also I still can't believe how cheap all these TVs are getting.

 

That's usually what happens when things become more common in the market and production costs decrease.

 

True then the market makes up for it by releasing some new do-dad that everyone has to have that is expensive so its an endless cycle.

Like in a year or two HD TVs will be like having just an SD TV now and everyone will have to have a HD 3D TV.

 

I highly doubt it, unless they can do it without glasses somehow. It'll be a while before 3D is really prevalent because people are just now readily adopting HD. Also 3D won't be good for casual watching because of the glasses and the fact that you really need a room with controlled light to take advantage.

 

Well that's good to hear for someone who recently upgraded to HD.


Also I recently heard that about 60% of TV viewers are still watching SD so you are more than likely right. Also that 60% is just a figure I heard watching TV the other day so it's in no way concrete.

 

That wouldn't surprise me since I'm sure no more than 60% of people have HDtv's anyway. Not to mention a bunch of people (like maybe 10-20%) who have HDtv's probably don't know that their sources aren't in HD. I mean, I even watch SD from time to time, but only when the channel isn't offered in HD.

 

Geek explanation part II: LED backlighting is much more energy-efficient and uniform than CCFL backlighting. You generally get a brighter image and a less blotchy image with LED backlighting, especially around the edges of the display. CCFL backlighting tends to be unevenly distributed, so some parts of the display are darker or brighter than others.

LED backlighting is the main reason why we're seeing half inch-thin TVs and super-thin notebook displays these days. And if you've ever seen the 27'' iMac in person, you've seen display nirvana: a high-end S-IPS panel with LED backlighting.

Non-geek explanation: 3D is a freaking gimmick and it will never get off the ground beyond tech show demonstrations and the basements of rich people with $15,000 to spare.

The industry should worry more about replacing LCD and transitioning viewers to digital HD, not about 3D.

 

i love my monitor, but it looks just as good as a lot of other monitors. the led makes the back thinnner and more power efficent (17 watts when i use it), but in the end, it's still an lcd.

 

I just went 55"

http://reviews.pricegrabber.com/pla.../expert/cbid=1109/st=expert_rev_mini/sv=logo/

 

You get in on the $1825 deal from a few days ago?



I'm looking at an 82" Mitsu as my next TV. Hopefully they're still making it in 4 years or so.

 

from who?

I used price grabber robo applications and found the lowest @ 2300. Was happy with that.

Also, not a fan of Plasma over LCD/LED so nothing over 55".....although, heads up, I was @ CES in Vegas, and Samsung has a 65" LCD/LED coming soon....NO TIMEFRAME!!!!

 

Beach Camera had it for $1825 on 1/15.




Samsung has a pure LCD for 65" right now.

If I wanted a 65", I'd get a LaserVue before anything else (though I am pretty sure the 1st model is OoP).

 

Not the 8000...but they may have on the 6000. I watched them like a hawk, and thats who I actually purchased the 8000 through on 16th after seeing it slightly higher on 15th. But if somehow I missed it....oh well...still very happy.

Funny cause the 6000 is now more than I paid for 8000....so I am very happy. http://www.beachcamera.com/shop/product.aspx?sku=SAMUN55B6000

 

Nope, it was the UN55B8000.

http://slickdeals.net/forums/showthread.php?t=1811413

 

Huh, links dead cant tell beyond the blog, but will take your word for it based on this....again, not worried cause even at 2300 its a great deal.

Since it had to do with coupon to get down to that level, etc...still not sure.
http://slickdeals.net/forums/showthread.php?t=1811413&page=20

 

I'm sure that is probably the case with a lot of people...although I don't get it.

 

I've only ever played my 360 on a 42" plasma I couldn't imagine playing it on anything smaller.

 

i got a 50" panny plasma for 999 and it's the ****

I honestly don't like the look of the 240hz sets...granted i haven't spent much time with them but my dad has the samsung b8000 led and everything moves so weird lol...like the soap opera effect.