LED LCD monitor at 1920x1200?

  • 59 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for JimmyJumpy
JimmyJumpy

2554

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 0

#51 JimmyJumpy
Member since 2008 • 2554 Posts

The Acer v243w is 1920x1200. Is a great monitor (with 400 candela, which is a tad bright). Only problem I have with it is when I keep my door open for a while (in winter): when the room temp goes down too fast, the monitor starts to flicker when set too bright. When I close the door again, al becomes normal again... weird, heh? But a great monitor nevertheless. Coming in at around 200 Euro, not expensive either :)

JJ

Avatar image for Animatronic64
Animatronic64

3971

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#52 Animatronic64
Member since 2010 • 3971 Posts

[QUOTE="Animatronic64"]

[QUOTE="NamelessPlayer"]

seeing IPS first hand next to TN, IPS is far far superior.

NamelessPlayer

There's definitely no contest. Know those nasty color shifts you get with a TN panel, especially along the vertical? Not really a problem on IPS (or BOE Hydis AFFS; don't know what the difference there is, but quality-wise, it's similar to IPS). Even for those who just view their monitors head-on perpendicular all the time, those color shifts are bound to crop up near the edges on a larger panel, depending on viewing distance...and in my case, I do own and use a TrackIR on occasion, which inherently requires me to view my monitor from off viewing angles. (Still a bit of purple shift in the blacks, but that's it.) I still haven't seen a proper IPS monitor, but the old HP TC1100 I used to have was equipped with an AFFS panel, and iPads have IPS as standard. Both of those pretty much blow away most of the LCDs I see around me despite the small size. In short, IPS is the very minimum I'd consider for replacing any of my FD Trinitrons, with some of the bigger LCD disadvantages being minimized.
well 16:10 is on the way out except for people with big budgets. You can get them but expect a 1920 x 1200 monitor to cost the same as two 1080p monitors with both of them being the same quality. Because 16:9 works better for movies and games more people want 16:9. 16:9 isn't always less viewing space. 22" monitors were mostly 1680 x 1050 but now they are mostly 1920 x 1080 which give significantly more space. imprezawrx500
I hate the price premium, but such is life. The high-end stuff I want practically never comes cheap. And 16:9 does NOT work better for games to me when it means losing vertical pixels-see my point above about downgrading to 1280x1024 over 1600x1200 in certain older games. Yes, I play old games too as well as new ones.

I think your argument about is null. As I said before, 99% of the time you can force any 4:3 resolution your monitor can support. So instead of being forced to use 1280x1024 on a 16:9 monitor - create a custom resolution of 1440x1080 in your video card's control panel, and then it should show up in your games resolution setting. If it does not for some reason, you might be able to edit the game's configuartion file, or force a widescreen hack. I guess it's more work, but either way, it's not really a problem. If it was, I wouldn't be playing Ultimate Doom at 1920x1080.

Avatar image for NamelessPlayer
NamelessPlayer

7729

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#53 NamelessPlayer
Member since 2004 • 7729 Posts
I think your argument about is null. As I said before, 99% of the time you can force any 4:3 resolution your monitor can support. So instead of being forced to use 1280x1024 on a 16:9 monitor - create a custom resolution of 1440x1080 in your video card's control panel, and then it should show up in your games resolution setting. If it does not for some reason, you might be able to edit the game's configuartion file, or force a widescreen hack. I guess it's more work, but either way, it's not really a problem. If it was, I wouldn't be playing Ultimate Doom at 1920x1080.Animatronic64
Like I said, it doesn't work for some of my games. For instance, the Pro Pinball titles all use pre-rendered 2D graphics, already baked in at 1280x1024 and 1600x1200. No custom resolution is going to get around that. I'll probably end up running into more games with fixed resolution options and those two being the highest as well, which no graphics driver or game config file edit is going to fix. I understand the point you're making, but it just doesn't work out with a lot of games that aren't 3D and naturally highly flexible in terms of resolution. Doom has a lot of modern source ports with enhanced rendering options going for it, whereas a lot of my old games of choice don't have their engine source code available to the public for people to tweak up. (Even some older 3D games can be iffy if they use old APIs like Glide, but a lot of Glide wrappers nowadays let you force higher resolutions through pixel-doubling while still keeping the 2D bits properly-sized.)
Avatar image for Aldouz
Aldouz

1206

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#54 Aldouz
Member since 2008 • 1206 Posts

It won't happen. 16:9 is the future. Get used to it :P

middle-earth88
AGREE... 1080p is the future and it will become standard for high resolution in near future... and 720p for mid resolution...
Avatar image for mattpunkgd
mattpunkgd

2198

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#55 mattpunkgd
Member since 2007 • 2198 Posts
[QUOTE="middle-earth88"]

It won't happen. 16:9 is the future. Get used to it :P

Aldouz
AGREE... 1080p is the future and it will become standard for high resolution in near future... and 720p for mid resolution...

720p for mid res i cannot see. It is just too low of a resolution.
Avatar image for Aldouz
Aldouz

1206

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#56 Aldouz
Member since 2008 • 1206 Posts
[QUOTE="Aldouz"][QUOTE="middle-earth88"]

It won't happen. 16:9 is the future. Get used to it :P

mattpunkgd
AGREE... 1080p is the future and it will become standard for high resolution in near future... and 720p for mid resolution...

720p for mid res i cannot see. It is just too low of a resolution.

Considering the increasing market in netbook and touch phone 720p is reasonable to become standard mid resolution... well I'm talkin about overall resolution here, not gaming res...
Avatar image for Gambler_3
Gambler_3

7736

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: -4

User Lists: 0

#57 Gambler_3
Member since 2009 • 7736 Posts

[QUOTE="mattpunkgd"][QUOTE="Aldouz"] AGREE... 1080p is the future and it will become standard for high resolution in near future... and 720p for mid resolution...Aldouz
720p for mid res i cannot see. It is just too low of a resolution.

Considering the increasing market in netbook and touch phone 720p is reasonable to become standard mid resolution... well I'm talkin about overall resolution here, not gaming res...

1080 is too low for the bigger 50" TV's....

Infact there really is no such thing as high or low resolution, it all depends on the size something many people dont quite understand.

On a mobile phone with a 2" display, even QVGA resolution looks crystal clear.

Avatar image for Urworstnhtmare
Urworstnhtmare

2630

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#58 Urworstnhtmare
Member since 2008 • 2630 Posts

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

i know of some Apple Cinema displays fit that res and LED backlit but they are damn expensive

tequilasunriser

"Apple expensive" should be a new term for hardware that is outrageously priced compared to the specs. Sort of like how extremely hard video games are called "Nintendo hard."

Why? The 27 inch Apple LED Monitor is the same price as a 27 DELL monitor with the same resolution etc. Not really opverpriced unless Dell is aswell.. Both are $999.99.....

Apple Cinema Display

Dell Monitor

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=224-8284&~ck=baynoteSearch&baynote_bnrank=5&baynote_irrank=0

For some reason if I make the Dell one a link to the site, Gamespot doesn't like it, but Apple works fine :P

Avatar image for DAOWAce
DAOWAce

800

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#59 DAOWAce
Member since 2003 • 800 Posts

Necro because I want Nameless to be my friend since he understands everything.

16:9 is disgusting.

I've been looking for a 120Hz 1920x1200 H-IPS display for the last 2 months and there's still nothing. Do I continue to wait? Do I get a high end 60Hz panel to replace my aging LCD? Do I go 120hz and grab 2 16:9 displays and set em up in portrait mode? The age of my current LCD is killing me and I can't stand waiting, but I have to because the market is flooded with idiocy.

I run a Dell P1130 and HP f2304. The CRT for my old games, the LCD for everything else because CRTs have been destroying my eyes over the years.

As you can see, I run with some of the highest end stuff (for its time), and want to go higher, not lower, but the illiterate folks that make up the majority of the world dominate the market now. Funny, I always thought 16:10 was for monitors and 16:9 was for HDTVs. What happened?