should I get 25' or 27' inch monitor? which one of these?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by ket222 (192 posts) -

my 24 inch monitor is showing REALLY washed out screens adn i can't seem to adjust; also about a fourth of the screen at the top is very white, and its hard to see the colors under it.

please tell me which of these to get, or neither. i want to do high end gaming (will games look better than on my 24 inch soyo monitor?), but i also write a LOT. is it true that with27 inch monitors, it's hard to read Word documents? can i get these cheaper, or are there better ones for about the same price? is it a lot more exciting to see a game like total war on a 27 inch rather than a 25 inch?

lastly, for the 27 inch monitor, someone on the forum said it looked very washed out (everyone else seemed to like it), but another person wrote that: After Enabling dynamic contrast i got a lot better colors. Before enabling it most colors where washed out. It seems to be the best 27 inch LCD for the price." HOW HARD would it be for me to enable dynamic contrast if i am a complete tech newbie and how would i do so?

THANKS

1)

ViewSonic VA2702w Black 27" 1920x1080 3ms Full HD WideScreen LCD Monitor300 cd/m2 DC 60,000:1 (1,200:1)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824116455

2)

HP 2511x Black 25" 5ms Full HD LED BackLight LCD Monitor Slim Design 250 cd/m2 DC 3,000,000:1 (1,000:1)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824176194

#2 Posted by blaznwiipspman1 (6041 posts) -

get one of those high tech ips monitors, their smaller but their picture quality is supposedly really good and within your price range.

#3 Posted by Adam_the_Nerd (4403 posts) -

If you're going to buy one of these you better be sitting (edit) more than two feet away.

#4 Posted by cfwin (344 posts) -

Washed out colors are a sad fact of all TN panel monitors. The 16:9 format (1920x1080) will not show 2 complete word documents side by side and in movie playback the osd of the player will be in the picture, you will not see this on a 16:10 (1920x1200) monitor and you have to decide if it's important for you.

I recently switched monitors to the Dell U2711 27" IPS monitor with 2560x1440 resolution and the difference is huge, colors are rich and vibrant and games look especially good, viewing angles are crazy-good, absolutely no distorion at any angle, no backlightbleed. Will never go back to TN.

#5 Posted by ket222 (192 posts) -

high tech ips monitors- can you pls give example and how large? over 24 inch?

#6 Posted by cfwin (344 posts) -

Dell U3011

Dell U2711

Dell U2410

All IPS

#7 Posted by ket222 (192 posts) -

guys those IPS monitors look a little out of my price range, esp if over 24". what about the two I linked to above? which is best? i'm concerned that someone above said that i would have to sit two feet away is that really true? does it mean i shouldn't go above a size 24"? i didn't see anyone on the newegg forum complaining about this but would like your opinions-also please read the new egg customer critiques and tell me if you agree thanks

#8 Posted by ket222 (192 posts) -

any thoughts please, as I'm rather confused thanks

#9 Posted by cfwin (344 posts) -

They seem very much equal to me, they both have what appears to be solid stands which is very important, you don't want a screen that size wobbling every time you move at your desk. The Viewsonic is bigger, a bit brighter and with slightly better contrast while the HP has LED backlighting for (supposedly) deeper blacks. You may want to check on the manufacturers' pixel policy, one might be more generous than the other.

Personally I would go with the slightly smaller HP because having a 27" screen at "only" 1920x1080 makes the lack of pixel density quite noticeable when sitting close (unlike a TV), HP is a solid brand in monitors (as is Viewsonic :) ), it has an hdmi-port.

#10 Posted by ket222 (192 posts) -

i really appreciate your comments which clarified things

i wanted to get the 27 inch, but if you truly feel that the 'pixel density' is a noticeable problem (I assume that means the graphics won't look as good as the 25 inch?), then i guess i will go with the 25 inch. the one negative comment i found on it was:
Cons: At the moment, the viewing angles are my biggest gripe. When looking at my browser or any white screen, like others have said on A-zon, the viewing angles will really start to bother. When the brightness is turned below a certain point, the screen starts to flicker. Starts around 75-76 brightness for me.
Should I be concerned about this? are they saying there are problems with surfing the web and things don't look very good ? i don't know what he is talking about with viewing angles

#11 Posted by cfwin (344 posts) -

The graphics may look a bit "crisper" on the 25" that's true but you should also account for the fact that if you game on a 27" you will feel a bit more immersed in the game (st least that's how it is for me :) ), not a entirely easy decision...

The viewing angles are very limited on all TN panels (like the panels in both those monitors and like 85-90% of all computer monitors), meaning that if you don't sit directly in front of it colors will be distorted, this is very noticeable on a white background since the colors would distort to grey or black when looking at the screen from an angle. The flickering is a bit weird, maybe a problem with that particular monitor if nobody else have reported it.

#12 Posted by ket222 (192 posts) -

the only other option i see is the following which is the 'first 27 inch in the world with 1 ms" whatever that means. if you think that means this monitor would be visually as nice as the 25 inch, then I will go with it. If it has the same problem as the 27 inch i mentioned earlier, I will just go with the 25 inch as you advised. No more messages i promise! thanks

http://www.amazon.com/ViewSonic-2019s-VX2739WM-27-Inch-1920x1080-Monitor/dp/B003GBRXKU/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1304166828&sr=8-1-fkmr0

#13 Posted by cfwin (344 posts) -

The 1ms is the amount of milliseconds it takes for one pixel to change from one color to another. You might think that as low as possible is the best but it is in fact not the case, first of all the human eye really can't tell a difference on anything below 10 ms so if your monitor is in that category you don't have to worry about lagging pixels. A problem with an extremly low ms on a screen is that the manufacturer uses overdrive tech in order to make the pixels more responsive which can actually lead to ghosting, trails and shadows. What seems good about this screen is that you can choose which setting to put the ms using the osd (would recommend that you set to somewhere in the middle and try it out). Viewsonic also has "the best pixel policy in the business" -their words, not mine but maybe it's good.

It's always like a lottery when buying a screen, first if you only buy it online you can't see it and test it out and then it's the issue of dead or stuck pixels, bought an acer monitor a few years back that had a stuck pixel just left of center and that was incredibly annoying and I couldn't take it back because of the pixel policy.

I say go for the last monitor you linked (the 1ms) if the price is good, godd luck...

#14 Posted by Elann2008 (32953 posts) -

If you're going to buy one of these you better be sitting (edit) more than two feet away.

Adam_the_Nerd
I sit about two feet away, sometimes less because I like staring at all the detail in games. Also, I'm blind as a bat (I wear eyeglasses). :P 26-inch monitor here.
#15 Posted by Elann2008 (32953 posts) -

The 1ms is the amount of milliseconds it takes for one pixel to change from one color to another. You might think that as low as possible is the best but it is in fact not the case, first of all the human eye really can't tell a difference on anything below 10 ms so if your monitor is in that category you don't have to worry about lagging pixels. A problem with an extremly low ms on a screen is that the manufacturer uses overdrive tech in order to make the pixels more responsive which can actually lead to ghosting, trails and shadows. What seems good about this screen is that you can choose which setting to put the ms using the osd (would recommend that you set to somewhere in the middle and try it out). Viewsonic also has "the best pixel policy in the business" -their words, not mine but maybe it's good.

It's always like a lottery when buying a screen, first if you only buy it online you can't see it and test it out and then it's the issue of dead or stuck pixels, bought an acer monitor a few years back that had a stuck pixel just left of center and that was incredibly annoying and I couldn't take it back because of the pixel policy.

I say go for the last monitor you linked (the 1ms) if the price is good, godd luck...

cfwin
Honestly, I can tell the difference between 10ms and 2 or 1 ms. You can see lag. It's hard to describe but I can see the difference. Maybe I'm just plain crazy or neurotic. :P
#16 Posted by imprezawrx500 (19187 posts) -
you have to remember 5ms and 2ms displays are really the same, the 2ms are measured grey to grey and 5ms is black to black.
#17 Posted by ket222 (192 posts) -

thanks to everyone for comments but i am now confused bc I saw a couple people say in different forums that the colors look washed out with 1920 x 1060 and it's better to have 1920 x 1200resolution. the problem i'm seeing is that almost ALL the 25-27 inch monitors I see advertised are at this lower resolution!! does this really matter? is it better for me to go 24 inch at 1920 x 1200resolution, or can i go 27 inch at the lower resolution and games would look just as good?

this is so frustrating! i justthought it would be good to have a larger monitor but not if it's washed out colors basically what monitor sizewould shogun total war look best in and is there a big difference between the two options?




#18 Posted by xsubtownerx (10705 posts) -
1080p is great. Don't let anyone here try to tell you differently.
#19 Posted by ket222 (192 posts) -

i am not sure what 1080p means, but I assume you are saying if i have a monitor with1080p and the lower resolution it is just as good as having a monitor atthe higher resolution?

#20 Posted by ket222 (192 posts) -
#21 Posted by cfwin (344 posts) -

^^ This is the same resolution as the other 3 monitors you talked about. 1080p = 1920x1080 = FullHD. As stated is good but the larger the screen and the closer you sit the size of the pixels will be greater = "blockier" or fuzzy perception, as opposed to a 24-25" with the same resolution where the pixel density will be greater at the same resolution.

Edit: and about the "washed-out" colors, nothing to do with the resolution, all dependent on the panel type: TN panel = colder colors, "only" 16.7 million, less color fidelity. IPS = accurate colors, 1.07 billion colors, excellent viewing angles.