Dicehunter
Resident Newb
cooleo thanks bud
Pixels per Inch. Screen size. Colour and contrast.
- Thread starter Timo
- Start date
cooleo thanks bud
Hey all. I hung around 45 mins last night but no-one replied. Then I had to go to work.
So, IPS gives good blacks? The one in PC World, Purley Way, didn't. It had very bright colours though. It was an HP. Sorry I don't carry a phone so no pics. Have you seen this picture on OCN? http://www.overclock.net/t/1479950/hardware-info-lg-34um95-21-9-ultrawide-qhd-34-inch-monitor/840
That must be a one-off?
So, IPS gives good blacks? The one in PC World, Purley Way, didn't. It had very bright colours though. It was an HP. Sorry I don't carry a phone so no pics. Have you seen this picture on OCN? http://www.overclock.net/t/1479950/hardware-info-lg-34um95-21-9-ultrawide-qhd-34-inch-monitor/840
That must be a one-off?
barnsley
born in a.....
I've highlighted your problem. Wouldn't be surprised if it was somehow configured poorly.
Thanks Barnsley. I read your 144 plus 1440 on page 2. Good message. I also agree about the Gsynch lock-in.
I guess I want that elusive "future Proof" like everyone else.
---------
Oh, by the way, PC World is usefull to actually see the kit in the flesh, rather than a utube video. You can actually put you hand on a mouse, for example. It's all I have left down here in Surrey.
I guess I want that elusive "future Proof" like everyone else.
---------
Oh, by the way, PC World is usefull to actually see the kit in the flesh, rather than a utube video. You can actually put you hand on a mouse, for example. It's all I have left down here in Surrey.
Last edited by a moderator:
remember300
Active member
For me i dislike things to look "blocky" from having low pixel density, the largest id go with 1080p would be 27" and even then depending on distance that might be a little too big, up close this is i'm happy having my 42" tv due to its distance. I really don't see the point of 75" 1080p tv's when your only 6 feet away.
With 1440p i've not seen it up close with large screen sizes to see the size limit id have, but thats besides the point as long as its clear im happy.
Some sights ive seen suggest ignoring the black levels/ contrast levels due to the fact they can simply turn off the pixels to give the black and just turn up brightness to get the different levels like these 2 million to 1 levels
Colour reproduction can make or break a monitor if it looks too washed out but i never judge the display videos they run as they are never set up for each monitor so a crap one can out perform a good one, i have to admit i asked pc world (where i got my tv from) to play a blu ray i had on each tv which i knew would look good once the tv was tweaked just to choose mine and my god im glad i did lol
When it comes to refresh rates i would want it to handle 60 fps no doubt, but i do notice in things like cad simulations i have run they seemed to be smoother, and thats something mundane like what people have joked about with text based software. High FPS is not just needed for CS i hate the fact there are some monitors designed to have high FPS and response times with bad black levels so in dark sections in CS don't show up dark which means they can see easier ... thats just cheating lol. but to be frank 60 fps would suit me fine.
Low response times can be handy but unless im gaming or running at high res ill just try and go for 2ms or below. I would find that playing online FPS games if i can drop the overal lag on everything from ping to monitor and mouse lag then ill be happy.
Anyways just my two cents
With 1440p i've not seen it up close with large screen sizes to see the size limit id have, but thats besides the point as long as its clear im happy.
Some sights ive seen suggest ignoring the black levels/ contrast levels due to the fact they can simply turn off the pixels to give the black and just turn up brightness to get the different levels like these 2 million to 1 levels
Colour reproduction can make or break a monitor if it looks too washed out but i never judge the display videos they run as they are never set up for each monitor so a crap one can out perform a good one, i have to admit i asked pc world (where i got my tv from) to play a blu ray i had on each tv which i knew would look good once the tv was tweaked just to choose mine and my god im glad i did lol
When it comes to refresh rates i would want it to handle 60 fps no doubt, but i do notice in things like cad simulations i have run they seemed to be smoother, and thats something mundane like what people have joked about with text based software. High FPS is not just needed for CS i hate the fact there are some monitors designed to have high FPS and response times with bad black levels so in dark sections in CS don't show up dark which means they can see easier ... thats just cheating lol. but to be frank 60 fps would suit me fine.
Low response times can be handy but unless im gaming or running at high res ill just try and go for 2ms or below. I would find that playing online FPS games if i can drop the overal lag on everything from ping to monitor and mouse lag then ill be happy.
Anyways just my two cents
Mysterae
New member
Sorry bud, it was a little baiting, but it wasn't mocking. Just trying to exemplify all the other factors that make up the purchasing decisions of many.
Anyway, I wouldn't buy a new monitor for at least six months. By that time g-sync may have been superseded, or a monitor may come out that's both g-sync and free-sync (should be possible, if not mandatory by VESA for DP1.2a) and the review sites would have put them through their paces. When that time comes, my order of precedence would be:
1. greater than 30", no point going smaller
2. g-sync or adaptive/free-sync, whatever performs better
3. if 32" or greater then 4k res, but be great at running half that res
4. fast response rate, no motion blur please
5. non-gloss panel, if I wanted a mirror...
6. viewing angle uniformity, as you don't look straight on at the perimeter of a large screen
7. high refresh rate, if it helps whatever sync technology is present
8. connectivity, must have at least 2 display ports
9. colour accuracy, red should be red, not thermonuclear red
10. Reasonable cost, got to be priced within reach
It's tough putting the last few in order, but I stand firm on the first six. Even I think I'm asking too much!
10. pretty much makes it impossible.
Why do you prefer 30"? I have a 24" and a 21.5" and no room for a third monitor, a 30" monitor would make it hard to even have two. Bigger size just means a higher price imo.
Mysterae
New member
It all hinges on the cost. No way would I pay 2k for 4k
. 1k and I'd be waiting for the other half to be out one day and see of she notices I'd replaced my monitor when she got back =00=.Multiple reasons why I prefer 30" - games are more cinematic in a big screen kinda way, more open, in some games it gives an advantage in a non-competitive way. I can't abide multiple screen gaming because of the bezel. When not gaming a large screen with it's greater resolution does increase productivity. Multiple windows open for example, resizing and image with Fireworks, this forum open in another and Filezilla tucked in the corner ready for uploads. On one screen. Yeah you can do that with multiple screens, but I found I turned them off in the past.
It all hinges on the cost. No way would I pay 2k for 4k
Multiple reasons why I prefer 30" - games are more cinematic in a big screen kinda way, more open, in some games it gives an advantage in a non-competitive way. I can't abide multiple screen gaming because of the bezel. When not gaming a large screen with it's greater resolution does increase productivity. Multiple windows open for example, resizing and image with Fireworks, this forum open in another and Filezilla tucked in the corner ready for uploads. On one screen. Yeah you can do that with multiple screens, but I found I turned them off in the past.
I got two screens and both of them are stuffed all the time, i don't like having a whole lot of windows on one screen. I'd rather have three or four monitors at small sizes. 24" is the largest i would ever go.
It's much easier to split up one big screen in multiple different ways than it is to smash small monitors together to watch one big picture like say a film or game. There are obvious reasons for large screens and multiple screens... nobody can be so dense they can't see that.
I've had both and for sitting up close multi-tasking triples are great but they are terrible for even medium distance viewing, there is nothing more depressing than finding a game that only supports a single screen and sitting in the middle of a huge black picture. It clearly depends on the environment and usage but I don't see much of a point in dual monitors, it's really got to be a single or triples to get the benefits of either. Either can look really swag.
JR
I've had both and for sitting up close multi-tasking triples are great but they are terrible for even medium distance viewing, there is nothing more depressing than finding a game that only supports a single screen and sitting in the middle of a huge black picture. It clearly depends on the environment and usage but I don't see much of a point in dual monitors, it's really got to be a single or triples to get the benefits of either. Either can look really swag.
JR
Last edited:
I wouldn't even want to play games across multiple monitors. Plus i sit in my chair at my desk, i'd have to use your PC like a console to need more than 24" to see something.
Thats funny because I use my console like a PC and sit right on the end of my bed infront of my 32" TV, when I try and play on the plasma downstairs sitting on the sofa I get owned. I don't understand how you can dismiss other peoples needs or preferences of having either a larger single monitor or triple monitors, they are both epic next level immersion.
remember300
Active member
if i had the cash id have a 21:9 aspect ratio 32" 1440p display for gaming and a smaller side monitor the same height and similar bezel for corsairlink cos im sad... untill i can build the monitor into the front of my pc case for CL.
I am not dismissing them, i am just not sharing that opinion. I don't think a monitor is immersive, no matter the size. I also don't get what a large single monitor does better than multiple smaller monitors if you don't use it for movies, i.e. sitting on a couch.
Mysterae
New member
You're not sad, or perhaps we both are! Here's an old image taken some time ago when I used a 24" in portrait aspect to monitor my pc with Rainmeter.
The pc has changed considerably since then, and since fitting an Aquaero for system monitoring the 24" is almost always turned off now. I should take an updated pic sometime.
The trouble is when you'd found that cash i'm sure you would be pretty mad if you got one of the many 21:9's to have horrific backlight bleed. It sounds great on paper and it's actually available but the fact it's just a little problematic makes it difficult to invest. Then there's the whole compatibility arguments when nothing will scale nicely to 21:9.
I think it's mainly the fact you don't have to decide between shear area to work on and the maximum size of a single 16:9 window, not only for long distance viewing but just for seeing details within whatever content it may be used for and just taking it all in at once. Like if your working on a large image or model. There is always going to be an inherent sweet spot for viewing each resolution and as they increase with time the size of the screen can too. Proposing a 24" monitor must of been obscene not that long ago but you quickly become used to it. I've been using my 13" Ultrabook for weeks now, that is small, but it's starting to feel pretty normal now. I'm sure you would quickly get over jumping up to 27" without even thinking about why you need a screen that big.
JR
Last edited:
remember300
Active member
very true but one can wish for perfection 
and getting the 1 model that works lol
I guess sad was the wrong word, but i just dont feel right now using a pc with out CL on the side or visable
and getting the 1 model that works lolI guess sad was the wrong word, but i just dont feel right now using a pc with out CL on the side or visable
It's not that a 30" screen would feel odd, it would just block my work place, it's not very handy. Just like i don't understand why people buy phones like the Note 3, of course you can deal with it but it's constantly in the way.
SuB
The Webmaster
I did, and it was still pretty bad, but I did have it next to a Dell 2405Wfp (excellent TN panel) and an IPS screen. I think tbh mate, the biggest issue i had was the lack of 1200p I'm just too used to it now.
