27" LED Monitors

Discussion in 'Tech Help' started by Shantotto, Aug 11, 2011.

  1. Offline

    Shantotto Guest

  2. Offline

    katmai Veteran BOON

    i heard some sick reports about the eizo screens. people said that once you get to toy with an eizo, you would ditch all other screens. i am running 2 samsung syncmasters myself - 22 and 26 inch, but i am really keen on trying out what eizo looks like.
  3. Offline

    Shantotto Guest

    The main difference is that all these cheap panels are TN, the expensive panels ( eizo, dell, apple, ) are all IPS which are definitely better quality, but also 4x the price.

    Buy 1x 30" for £1000, or buy 2x27" for £500? Pretty easy choice unless you're in graphics design and have a hardware calibrator level nerd factor for monitors :p
  4. Offline

    katmai Veteran BOON

    ah that's why the quality difference. oh well for us the normal gamers/casual stuff works just fine. i never had any eye for design/colors anyway. not that i did not try but i just pick shit colors every time.
  5. Offline

    Alaisy Veteran BOON

    Does it have to look good (the monitor itself)? Otherwise the LG has a nice Price/quality.
  6. Offline

    Shantotto Guest

    The LG has some nice reviews and seems to be a UH-IPS panel ( which is like a cheap IPS technique ).

    Looks like the frontrunner atm.
  7. Offline

    Ketz Veteran BOON

    If i am not mistaken the LG one has higher response time(5ms) which is ok tbh but why not pick up the Samsung from that list with a response time of 2ms and by far better quallity in blacks. Generally Samsung is a great choice for the money you pay both for computer monitors and TV's.
    Phillips is a different story though, it's been more that 5 years since Phillips brought out a panel that felt great to look at and was a good deal moneywise.
    I am still looking at the speccs of each one but so far the Samsung would be number 1 for me.

    nvm seems this LG has better blacks like you said Shan
  8. Offline

    Bluestar Veteran BOON

  9. Offline

    Alaisy Veteran BOON

    Can't believe packard bell still sells stuff, its the biggest pile of shit you could get.

    @Ketz about ms:

    from http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?216877-LCD-Response-Time-2ms-vs-5ms-(Gaming)

    Even though I disagree with the guy that you cannot feel the difference between 25 or 120 FPS, you will. But the tiny 0,64 frames, not really.
  10. Offline

    Ketz Veteran BOON

  11. Offline

    Tal The Architect

    The human eye doesn't see in 'fps'. It's just that ~24fps is enough for eyes to see fluid movement. He's talking rubbish.
  12. Offline

    Aspira Admin Officer

    Exactly this. Anything higher than 24 FPS is enough to fool the human eye. It's only when you go below 24 that you start to notice stuttering.
  13. Offline

    Shantotto Guest

    You can tell the difference between a game running at 30fps, 60fps, 90fps and 150fps very easily.
    If you don't bleev me drag out your old iiyamas and load up a copy of Q3.
  14. Offline

    Alaisy Veteran BOON

    I also didnt say see, I said feel. And I don't really know how you describe it, but you definitely ''notice'' the difference, I have a 60hz screen next to my 120hz LCD and running battlefield with frame sync on @ 60 FPS is a lot less smooth than 120fps, ofcourse I put the settings extremely low otherwise you'd get minimal FPS lower than 120.

    Unfortunately there's no way to prove it, as if I recorded it you would watch the recording on a 60hz monitor :p.
  15. Offline

    F U R I E Veteran BOON

  16. Offline

    Doodle Bush Whacker!

    wikipedia is not considered a viable source :p
  17. Offline

    F U R I E Veteran BOON

    More reliable than no source at all :p
    There's a reason why movies are recorded at 24 fps since 1920 while videogames require at least 60 fps to be considered fluid. Just check a single movie frame of an action scene and then compare it to a videogame's one and you'll understand why :p
  18. Offline

    Maskerad Veteran BOON

    I hate to say this but movies are recorded at 24 fps because people thought anything higher didn't feel right. Also has to do with homecams being 60 fps.
  19. Offline

    Ketz Veteran BOON

    First part is correct, 24 fps is what feels natural to the human eye. Second part is 99% wrong since most homecams record at 25 fps(pal) and 720*576 and if there a few models that record more they are not the rule but the exception. Also and very important fact is that Film(the material, not movies) is recorded at 24 fps because film does not include fields(no way i am gonna go in all the tech details while writting from my phone). Digital film is another story and can vary from 20 to 1000 fps depending on the fact if you wanna do Super slow motion amd of course depending on the camcorder.
  20. Offline

    Ketz Veteran BOON

Share This Page