Q. i wanna buy a LCD-monitor for my PC. i researched on a few things before buying. but I'm confused with refresh rate of LCD-moniters. some experts say that 85 Hz for 24-inch size is best and more than this it will not be a good thing but will result in a bad display. some say that 120 hz is new and best refresh rate for good picture clarity and for movies n video games.... :( what to do ?????
A. 60 Hz is good enough for an lcd-monitor because the picture is steady by nature, in contrast to tube-monitors that tend to flicker at lower refreshrates. 60Hz is a bit faster then the refreshrate of the human eye/brain, so you don't realy need anything faster. 60Hz also has as an extra advantage in games that it puts less load on the videocard, because the higher the refreshrate the more the videocard has to work, because 1 refresh-cycle consists among others of calculating the actuall content of the picture, so the less refresh-cycles in a given time-period, the more calculatingtime the videocard has left to for instance display a higher resolution or smoother video. What is important for lcd-monitors is a fast responsetime, a responsetime of 5ms or less is good.
oops now i gotta get a bit messy because this is new for me also:
Hmmmm, wel the higher refreshrates u mention are in fact not realy higher refreshrates but some new/unclear technique. (i just read it now, and it's new for me) of inserting black images to reset the eye. But anyway it seems that lcd tv's have a habit of not mentioning the responsetime (this is NOT the same as the refreshrate or responseRATE) while monitors do mention the responsetime. A good responsetime (grey to grey 5ms or less) is the most important thing. The higher refreshrates are an unclear technique to me so i'd rather have an lcd monitor with a low responsetime like 2ms then an lcd-tv with 480 Mhz with a worse or unspecified responsetime. Or to put it differently: a monitor with a 5 or even 2 ms response time wil give a very nice smooth picture. However the insertion of black images may make it even smoother, but i think that's marginal (when i look at a video on my 5ms monitor it just looks great)
hd-tv's seem to utilize a new technology that projects black images over the native refreshrate of the videosource like for instance 50Hz (tv) or 60Hz (computer). So lets refrase my statement. You should use a video-source of no more then 60Hz because more is a waist of resources. I also think high refreshrates is something for tv's rather then monitors, maybe because tv's have a lower responsetime.
I would prefer a monitor that just displays at 60Hz with a low responsetime above any lcd-tv unless it also gives the responsetime in ms. But for use as a tv, not as a computer-monitor a high refreshrate may also be good, but again the responsetime is more important as i see it.
Also artficially increased refreshrate may have some nasty side-effects (see sources)
So there's actually 3 thing's when it comes to refreshrate: the rate of the source (lets say your computer is set to work at 60Hz, the refreshrate of the monitor (normally 1:1 so also 60Hz, but for tv's artificially increased)
Since you want a monitor and not a tv, i'd go for a "normal" led-monitor displaying the source 1:1 and with a 2ms responsetime. movies wil look great guaranteed, but monitors are normally smaller then tv's so you wil have to sit close.
For a livingroom tv, i'd get a tv with a low responseTIME, and an artificially increased refreshrate/responseRATE may be usefull but also must be able to be deactivated because it can actually decrease the quality of a movie.
oops now i gotta get a bit messy because this is new for me also:
Hmmmm, wel the higher refreshrates u mention are in fact not realy higher refreshrates but some new/unclear technique. (i just read it now, and it's new for me) of inserting black images to reset the eye. But anyway it seems that lcd tv's have a habit of not mentioning the responsetime (this is NOT the same as the refreshrate or responseRATE) while monitors do mention the responsetime. A good responsetime (grey to grey 5ms or less) is the most important thing. The higher refreshrates are an unclear technique to me so i'd rather have an lcd monitor with a low responsetime like 2ms then an lcd-tv with 480 Mhz with a worse or unspecified responsetime. Or to put it differently: a monitor with a 5 or even 2 ms response time wil give a very nice smooth picture. However the insertion of black images may make it even smoother, but i think that's marginal (when i look at a video on my 5ms monitor it just looks great)
hd-tv's seem to utilize a new technology that projects black images over the native refreshrate of the videosource like for instance 50Hz (tv) or 60Hz (computer). So lets refrase my statement. You should use a video-source of no more then 60Hz because more is a waist of resources. I also think high refreshrates is something for tv's rather then monitors, maybe because tv's have a lower responsetime.
I would prefer a monitor that just displays at 60Hz with a low responsetime above any lcd-tv unless it also gives the responsetime in ms. But for use as a tv, not as a computer-monitor a high refreshrate may also be good, but again the responsetime is more important as i see it.
Also artficially increased refreshrate may have some nasty side-effects (see sources)
So there's actually 3 thing's when it comes to refreshrate: the rate of the source (lets say your computer is set to work at 60Hz, the refreshrate of the monitor (normally 1:1 so also 60Hz, but for tv's artificially increased)
Since you want a monitor and not a tv, i'd go for a "normal" led-monitor displaying the source 1:1 and with a 2ms responsetime. movies wil look great guaranteed, but monitors are normally smaller then tv's so you wil have to sit close.
For a livingroom tv, i'd get a tv with a low responseTIME, and an artificially increased refreshrate/responseRATE may be usefull but also must be able to be deactivated because it can actually decrease the quality of a movie.
What is the Best Lcd Tv-PC Monitor,,, 22-24 inch and not more than $700 ,, thanks?
Q. what makes lcd monitor a good one ,,,
what should i look for when buying new lcd
Details please explain as much as you can
thanks alot in advance
what should i look for when buying new lcd
Details please explain as much as you can
thanks alot in advance
A. Gateway which just got acquired by ACER makes a really Superb 24" LCD HD Monitor with analog component inputs, HDMI, DVI and VGA Inputs as well as Composite and S-Video Inputs. The only thing it doesn't have is an ATSC Tuner. It's a monitor not a HDTV but it's the closest thing to an HDTV you can get without the Tuner being built in.
I have a 24" one and a 19" one, theyre the previous models to the ones that are out now. (Mine is FPD2485W) List price is about $500, online you can get 'em for alot less. They also make a 30" one that can do 1600p resolution but it's $1699.
the 2 main specifications of an LCD display that you will see is Brightness (may be described as NITS) and contrast
(usually expressed as a ratio).
more recent displays will advertise a contrast ratio of "2000:1" or "3000:1" and big displays might even advertise "7000:1" (Samsung) or "15000:1" (Sharp)
but in those cases the contrast ratio is the result of Digital Signal Processing (DSP) and isn't a true contrast meaure like you'd get on a CRT-Tube display.
Generally speaking the higher the contrast ratio the better, the higher the brightness the better. Also, LCD's have a narrower viewing angle, that is to say that if you're too far off to one side or the other the picture gets crappy looking and this is common from brand to brand and sceen size is not relevant. Plasmas aren't as bad at that but use 2X the power as LCD.
Good Luck!
I have a 24" one and a 19" one, theyre the previous models to the ones that are out now. (Mine is FPD2485W) List price is about $500, online you can get 'em for alot less. They also make a 30" one that can do 1600p resolution but it's $1699.
the 2 main specifications of an LCD display that you will see is Brightness (may be described as NITS) and contrast
(usually expressed as a ratio).
more recent displays will advertise a contrast ratio of "2000:1" or "3000:1" and big displays might even advertise "7000:1" (Samsung) or "15000:1" (Sharp)
but in those cases the contrast ratio is the result of Digital Signal Processing (DSP) and isn't a true contrast meaure like you'd get on a CRT-Tube display.
Generally speaking the higher the contrast ratio the better, the higher the brightness the better. Also, LCD's have a narrower viewing angle, that is to say that if you're too far off to one side or the other the picture gets crappy looking and this is common from brand to brand and sceen size is not relevant. Plasmas aren't as bad at that but use 2X the power as LCD.
Good Luck!
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar