That acer in Sri Comp really cheap, any catch apart from being a stock clearence item and slight input lag? What about pixel mapping?

Looks like that orange monitor from acer is for sale, the G24. If you look at the latest acer brochure, or the pc fair one, the bundle with the acer predator makes it cost rm1348 was it, looks like a good price for a 24"

http://www1.ap.dell.com/content/products/c...en&s=dhs&~ck=mn

The new Dell 24" monitor with 16:9 aspect ratio is on sale for Rm1099, a good buy??

This post has been edited by kaiserreich: Aug 6 2008, 03:56 PM

For that price, I'd be surprised if it's not TN panel. For PS3 and such, 16:9 is good, since its 1:1 scaling. But what about normal computing then?

Funny thing is, in the US, it says it comes with HDMI, maybe a typo or something

And when you click on details, it still says HDMI

The picture does show a HDMI port next to the VGA port
http://www1.ap.dell.com/content/products/s...GxfczI0MDl3ZnA=

Other than the TN panel and the fact that there's 120 vertical pixels less, what tradeoff is there at RM1099? There's someone in tradezone selling Dell monitor stands with height adjustment so that tradeoff is nothing I supose

This post has been edited by kaiserreich: Aug 6 2008, 04:20 PM

Then what does that make the old 5:4 ?
16:9 is for movie, 5:4 is the old "standard" but i don't know what is 16:10 for honestly, maybe they just wanted to move to widescreen to save money and end up with 16:10, and since 16:9 is the cinema screen ratio, they cut that little vertical height to save more money?

Not really, both are TN panels, so the color is just about the same. 16:9 is great for console gaming, IMHO, since all consoles output at 16:9. As to the pricing, I'd think since these screen are smaller than the 24", the manufacturers could cut cost, same as 5:4 move to 16:10, same screen size, but size 16:10 has less pixels, they save cost.


G2400W, new dell, or the old Acer in Sri Comp, though choice.

G2400W - looks great
New Dell - too wide perhaps? Great for movies and console gaming, but that's that.
Old Acer - MVA panel for rm999 w/o HDCP, no HDMI

Does the fact that the Dell has 300 cd/m2 matters? since the E248 and the 2408WFP has 400 cd/m2?

This post has been edited by kaiserreich: Aug 6 2008, 07:48 PM

OMFG, dell is going to release a 23" version as well, based on the pictures. S2309Wb. The box is really small compared to my old Dell 19" at home.

I honestly couldn't pick between a 24" and a 22". I have a M1530 and running games at native res, the 8600M wouldn't really cut it. Most of my movies are from you-know-where, and they are the lower res ones, I have a few 720p ones. Most of the people running 24" either has a kickass GPU or they are running their consoles on it.

I guess the only thing I'll run at native res is for old games and web surfing, which is a waste.

Help?

This post has been edited by kaiserreich: Aug 10 2008, 01:12 AM

I'm on a laptop, and since I got it this january, I don't forsee changing it on the near future. That's the dilemma

No difference.

But T240 is a TN panel, 2407 is a S-PVA panel, which is a 8bit panel and has better viewing angles and all the bells and whistles.

If you can afford it, 2407, but if you do game a lot, based on my readings, the 2407 has significant input lag during FPS games and bothers a lot of people.

Speaking of which, does the T220 support 1:1 scaling? Some says yes, some say no, but overall the review on it seems rather poor

Among these three, the T220 is new, and the Dell has great service, but from what I read, no 1:1 scalling is that it? it's a turnoff when you don't really have a good GPU to push it, and with a laptop, neither could you upgrade the GPU.

seems like the 2253BW is good enough between these 3.

S2409W is good enough if you have GPU to push the res when gaming.


This post has been edited by kaiserreich: Aug 18 2008, 11:13 AM

Does it do 1:1 pixel mapping?

If you do happen to call HP again, try asking how much would the s-pva 22" cost could you please?

That price is pretty steep. Considering my laptop cant drive games at high resolution, the only thing I'd consider doing with the monitor is movies and webpages. Of course, a normal TN would do fine for such, but never hurts looking for other options.

Honestly, at this price for a 22", I'd be looking for a 32" LCD TV, those things has low reso, but my movies aren't HD neither. The monitor is attractive for the panel, but RM2000? It's priced at $400 in the US, do the math youself, doesn't take exactly RM600 to fly a monitor here from US or China is it? Had it been $400 and converted properly, it would be in the shopping list of many people here.

Anyhoo, thanks for the info.

This post has been edited by kaiserreich: Aug 28 2008, 01:03 AM

This is one of the most comprehensive reviews I've ever read on monitors. Great job by the writer honestly.

I agree and disagree for some points.

5:4 17" and 19" has the same resolution and the 19" would have bigger font size, in fact, the 19" 5:4 monitors has the biggest among LCD monitors, unless you'd want to use a LCD TV as a monitor.

This post has been edited by kaiserreich: Sep 10 2008, 07:21 PM

Do you still have your 2405? Why not post pictures of them side by side?

Give him a break and lets rest this thing aside.

Everybody knows which panel is better than whichever panel and the price premium attached to the type of panel that you are referring to.

I think he got too excited with his new HP 24" that looks so good to him that he decided to 'convert' everyone to the premium panels.

Honestly I don't see a point making a fuss about this, and reading through whatever he said and then find some 'wording' problem. This is not doing any good to all of us and just make all of us more stressful. Imagine yourself getting a brand new toy/item/etc and then showing it to your friends and in that period, making some mistakes is your 'wording'/'speeches'. We all make mistakes.

He just got too excited, it's that simple.

This post has been edited by kaiserreich: Sep 14 2008, 12:35 PM

For those running WUXGA (1920 x 1200) or Those FULLHD res (1920x1080), I know running 1080p content on them looks gorgeous, but I'd like to ask your opinion on other contents, namely:

720p

Other lower resolution contents, such as DVD-Rip, Tv Shows, these are about half the resolution of the 720p content

Lastly, .rmvb contents.

Basically, please describe how does these content look/run on these screens.
If you have any viewing experience on lower res screens, most of which would be 1680x1050, 1440x900, 1280x1024, 1280x720.

The rational in this question would be that since most of us would want big screens but then not all of us could afford a blu-ray player, and lets face it, most content are jack sparrowed from "you-know-where" and for a 2-hour movie the size of 600 - 700MB, these files aren't going to be high resolution but these type of contents would be the ones most of us are watching, most of the time.

Thanks

This post has been edited by kaiserreich: Sep 25 2008, 12:29 AM

Maybe I should come up with a answer template or something.

Of course, given the chance, I'd like all my files to be 1080p, but if I do so, my hdd would fill up in no time. Even if i can buy another hdd, the fact remains, 1080p content is considered rare as compared to their SD counterparts.

Anyways, please answer in this format or something.

I don't get what you are trying to say. With all due respect, it seems that you are just stating the facts without opinion or something.

For standard HDTV, we sit quite far from it so SD content would not look awful, but we are talking about monitors which most of us are sitting maybe around 1 - 1.5 m from, and the blocks certainly look bigger than as compared to a HDTV.

Given that : if most contents in your library are 1080p files, certainly there's no issues there with 1920x1200 being the best choice.

But if most contents are SD contents, we should still go for highres screen + >=24", is that what you say, even if you'll be seeing blocky images all the time? What I'm thinking is, with mostly SD content, maybe it's better to get a 22" with 1680 x 1050 or a HDTV with 1366x768 res, which would make the images look better, which you disagreed. Why is that?


This post has been edited by kaiserreich: Sep 25 2008, 07:16 PM