[SCHUMI_4EVER]

Well my dad's retiring, which means he will be working from home and will need the standard non-wide 19inch I am using back...it's actually his monitor...so it's time for me to get something new and if possible rather than hunting down another 19inch standard non-wide monitor I would like to try and go full HD....this really limits my options though...basically I can only get 23inch monitors, as 22inch ones are too small and 24inch are too expensive.

Now what's very important is that the dimensions (especially hight) are bigger than my current screen or at the very least the same.

So my current screen with stand:
Width 41 cm
Depth 21.4 cm
Height 40.4 cm

Dimensions without stand (or rather area filled by the actual screen):
Width 376 mm
Height 301 mm

So my choice has to be at least equal to that height, better would be nice though.

This basically leaves me with 3 choices:
Samsung 2333SW LCD - Samsung 23" 2333SW 300cdm 20000:1 5ms LCD Monitor : Sybaritic - South African Online Computer Store
Samsung 2494HS (no link)
Acer V223HBID ET.VV3HE.011 23" Wide LCD Monitor V223HBID no speakers (Analog D-sub, DVI &HDMI) - (Black) 5MS response time


So which one would you suggest?

My absolute max budget limit is R2500 so feel free to pick something you think is better (that meets the height requirement) from either of those two sites.
It would be nice if it was Full HD so (1920x1080) but I guess I can settle for 1680x1050.

Thanks for any help guys.

 

[makotech222]

I usually hear Samsungs are very good quality. The samsung i notice also has 75hz refresh rate, which is really nice.

 

[Spyhop]

double post

 

[Princess Garnet]

If you get full HD, I'd go for 1920x1200, not the 1920x1080. The former is the ratio PC monitors use. The latter is the television widescreen ratio. I remember you saying you think the widescreens seem smaller since you're not used to the lack of vertical space. In that case, don't go with a television widescreen ratio. They have even less vertical space than widesceen PC monitors do, such as the common 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 ones. A 1920x1200 resolution is 1600x1200 widescreen, so that would be nice.

 

[Spyhop]

Well my dad's retiring, which means he will be working from home and will need the standard non-wide 19inch I am using back...it's actually his monitor...so it's time for me to get something new and if possible rather than hunting down another 19inch standard non-wide monitor I would like to try and go full HD....this really limits my options though...basically I can only get 23inch monitors, as 22inch ones are too small and 24inch are too expensive.

Monitors have been HD for many moons. That 19 inch you gave back to your dad, that was HD. If you're taking about 1080p, then that's 1920x1080. Not a standard computer resolution, but it's still supported, it'll work. I would go for the 1920x1200 res screens though. The defacto standard widescreen computer res is 16:10 and you may find some games supporting 16:10 and not 16:9.

This basically leaves me with 3 choices:
Samsung 2333SW LCD - Samsung 23" 2333SW 300cdm 20000:1 5ms LCD Monitor : Sybaritic - South African Online Computer Store
Samsung 2494HS (no link)
Acer V223HBID ET.VV3HE.011 23" Wide LCD Monitor V223HBID no speakers (Analog D-sub, DVI &HDMI) - (Black) 5MS response time


So which one would you suggest?

My absolute max budget limit is R2500 so feel free to pick something you think is better (that meets the height requirement) from either of those two sites.
It would be nice if it was Full HD so (1920x1080) but I guess I can settle for 1680x1050.

Thanks for any help guys.

Don't get Acer for one. I sold them for years and they're terrible. Frugal people will defend them to death because they're cheap, but they're not good.

I wouldn't get a 1920x1080 monitor, for reasons stated above. There are 1920x1200 options in 22", not many, but they're there. 23" is this odd size where you tend to find many of the monitor/tv crossbreeds, like the ones you just listed.

Samsung is iffy. Sometimes they're awesome, sometimes you wind up with a crappy CMO panel. No way to tell until you buy it and open it.

Look at your LG options. LG makes dynamite panels. Also, I know Lenovo has a 22" 1920x1200 offering as well.

 

[SCHUMI_4EVER]

Monitors have been HD for many moons. That 19 inch you gave back to your dad, that was HD. If you're taking about 1080p, then that's 1920x1080. Not a standard computer resolution, but it's still supported, it'll work. I would go for the 1920x1200 res screens though. The defacto standard widescreen computer res is 16:10 and you may find some games supporting 16:10 and not 16:9.



Don't get Acer for one. I sold them for years and they're terrible. Frugal people will defend them to death because they're cheap, but they're not good.

I wouldn't get a 1920x1080 monitor, for reasons stated above. There are 1920x1200 options in 22", not many, but they're there. 23" is this odd size where you tend to find many of the monitor/tv crossbreeds, like the ones you just listed.

Samsung is iffy. Sometimes they're awesome, sometimes you wind up with a crappy CMO panel. No way to tell until you buy it and open it.

Look at your LG options. LG makes dynamite panels. Also, I know Lenovo has a 22" 1920x1200 offering as well.

Thanks a lot for all the info Spyhop. I will cut the Acer from my list then.
I have had look at LG and there's nothing with 1920x1200 available here in South Africa. I still have to check if there's something which meets my height requirement though. Those Samsung's despite what you said still look like my best option at the moment though...how bad exactly is a CMO Panel?....

By the way the Samsung 2494HS seems to specify that it is specifically a TN Panel...those are the good ones are they not? That can't be CMO then can it?

If you get full HD, I'd go for 1920x1200, not the 1920x1080. The former is the ratio PC monitors use. The latter is the television widescreen ratio. I remember you saying you think the widescreens seem smaller since you're not used to the lack of vertical space. In that case, don't go with a television widescreen ratio. They have even less vertical space than widesceen PC monitors do, such as the common 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 ones. A 1920x1200 resolution is 1600x1200 widescreen, so that would be nice.

You bring up a very valid point Zedeck...however also one that speaks in favour of those screens as well. Unfortunately the only 1920x1200 monitors are far outside my budget otherwise I would not have even given it a second thought. Now 1920x1080 might be a strange resolution for PC screens, but it's a TV screen resolution as you said, which is not exactly a bad thing for me as I do use my PC for TV viewing a lot as well and we are starting to go digital and HD over here finally...so I assume that 1920x1200 whilst great for PC...would end up looking very strange when using my TV card. Also yes I don't like screens which are too wide, however the screens I mentioned meet my physical height requirement (and are pretty much the only screens I know of that do) and providing the width is not like twice the height I should be ok.

I usually hear Samsungs are very good quality. The samsung i notice also has 75hz refresh rate, which is really nice.

Thanks for the info makotech.





Ok guys, so if you are of the opinion that those screens are no good please find me a 22inch on one of those 2 sites that meets my physical height requirement, that's more important than the res.

 

[Spyhop]

how bad exactly is a CMO Panel?....

CMO panels have an incurable blue dominance. No amount of messing around with the color settings on the monitor will completely get rid of it. It's very noticeable and looks quite bad. There's no way to tell which panel Samsung used in an monitor until you unpackage it, plug it in, and look at the service menu. Mind you, checking the service menu isn't entirely necessary. If you got a CMO panel, you'll see it right away.

 

[SCHUMI_4EVER]

The 2494HS seems to specify that it's a TN Panel...that can't end up a CMO panel then can it?

 

[Spyhop]

TN denotes the panel type. Like saying "TFT". TN stands for Twisted Nematic.

CMO denotes where it was manufactured. CMO panels are their China fab plant I think. There's a bunch of panel revisions, CMO is the one to avoid though.

 

[SCHUMI_4EVER]

Cool thanks again for that...hmm I have another two monitor possibilities

The Samsung 2233BW
2233BW Samsung 2233BW 22" Wide LCD, WSXGA+, 1680 x 1050, 5ms, Contrast 1000:1 (DC:20000:1) - 15Pin/DVi, View Angle:...


And the LG W2234S
LCD - LG 22" W2234S Wide 300cdm 1000:1 5ms LCD Monitor : Sybaritic - South African Online Computer Store


Which of those two would you pick?

Do Samsung Monitors also have the feature that allows the screen to instantly confine itself to 4:3 when watching Media...cuz if they don't it would kinda ruin them for me.

 

[Spyhop]

I'd pick the LG, simply to avoid playing the Samsung lottery.

Edit: My LG has the 4:3 function. Not sure about that one.
4:3 switch isn't a big concern for media. Any media player worth a damn will keep the aspect ratio intact for you. It's handy when you're playing older games that don't support widescreen though.

 

[SCHUMI_4EVER]

Well I still like playing tons of old games so if the Samsung's don't have such a feature it's a definite dealbreaker for me.

 

[Spyhop]

I have the LG W2242TQ. It's extremely nice, and it does have the 4:3 button.

 

[Princess Garnet]

1920x1200 won't look that bad when viewing 1920x1080 broadcast (by the way, most, if not all, HD broadcasting is done in 1080i, as far as I know). It'll just have Black bars on the top and bottom, but you'll have the extra space when computing.

You'll appreciate the extra vertical space with the huge horizontal increase. You're using a 5:4 monitor now. 16:9 is almost 2:1 (two squares side by side). Imagine putting two if your monitors next to each other, and cut some of the horizontal space. Would you want the small extra vertical space? I would.

Otherwise, follow Spyhop's advice. He seems to really know his LCD (and television and monitor) stuff.

 

[Spyhop]

1920x1200 won't look that bad when viewing 1920x1080 broadcast

It'll look the same, it'll just crop.

(by the way, most, if not all, HD broadcasting is done in 1080i, as far as I know).

It'll de-interlace on playback.

It'll just have Black bars on the top and bottom, but you'll have the extra space when computing.

The term "black bars" makes me cringe like nails on a chalkboard. People use the term like the "black bars" are something physical, and something to be avoided. It makes it sound like they're this intrusive artifact that gets in the way of your viewing. It's better to say "unused space" since that's closer to the truth. That being said, few movies are 16:9. Most dvds or blu ray movies are 1.85:1 or 2.39:1, which will cause some cropping even on 16:9 displays. Nowadays, dealing with unused space on a display when it comes to movies is a realty we should all be used to by now.

Imagine putting two if your monitors next to each other.

1 & 1/2 monitors side by side would be more accurate.

 

[Princess Garnet]

If you wouldn't have separated my statements, you'd see the first one you quoted and the third one you quoted go together, so my way of saying "it won't look bad" wasn't meant to imply it'd be altered. I followed up with what you said.

As for the "Black bars" part, I wasn't saying that in a bad way. That's why I said "just" before it (as though it was no real big deal). Sorry the term itself isn't to your preference, but my usage of it wasn't implying the term in the same way you negatively view of it.

You're right about the last part. I got mixed up a bit.

 

[SCHUMI_4EVER]

1920x1200 won't look that bad when viewing 1920x1080 broadcast (by the way, most, if not all, HD broadcasting is done in 1080i, as far as I know). It'll just have Black bars on the top and bottom, but you'll have the extra space when computing.

You'll appreciate the extra vertical space with the huge horizontal increase. You're using a 5:4 monitor now. 16:9 is almost 2:1 (two squares side by side). Imagine putting two if your monitors next to each other, and cut some of the horizontal space. Would you want the small extra vertical space? I would.

Otherwise, follow Spyhop's advice. He seems to really know his LCD (and television and monitor) stuff.

It'll look the same, it'll just crop.



It'll de-interlace on playback.



The term "black bars" makes me cringe like nails on a chalkboard. People use the term like the "black bars" are something physical, and something to be avoided. It makes it sound like they're this intrusive artifact that gets in the way of your viewing. It's better to say "unused space" since that's closer to the truth. That being said, few movies are 16:9. Most dvds or blu ray movies are 1.85:1 or 2.39:1, which will cause some cropping even on 16:9 displays. Nowadays, dealing with unused space on a display when it comes to movies is a realty we should all be used to by now.




1 & 1/2 monitors side by side would be more accurate.

Yes Black Bars/Unused space aresomething we have always had to deal with...but if those bars end up being like the same size as the movie...then they seriously are some intrusive artifact that gets in the way of my viewing.

Also seeing as I can't afford something that's taller than my current monitor by the looks of things, then 1 and 1/2 of my current monitor side by side would be the least I am willing to settle for, nothing that gives up even just half a centimeter in height to my current monitor is acceptable...which is why I don't really like 22 inch monitors cuz all that I have seen physicially, end up giving like 1-2cm of vertical space to my current one. And this is why the 23 inch montiors interest me, almost 24, but not quite, but they will at least be taller than 22inch monitors and thus also equal to or taller than my current monitor..which is pretty much all that matters to me.

Perhaps my aversion to something that's less tall than my current monitor can best be explained by how I see the dimensions. The width of something or of my view can basically determine how much of something I can see. The height of my view however determines how well I can see it. For instance if you take a picture and you want to enlarge it...just dragging it wider would give you nothing...just dragging it taller however would make everything in it larger, however in order to return the picture to the correct aspect you would have to drag it a little wider again afterwards but that's fine. The whole widescreen mentality seems to be that wider is better though regardless of how tall it is which greatly bothers me. For instance a 19inch Widescreen would be a horrible compression of what I currently have...a 22inch is better, but still feels as if it compresses my view somewhat, then 23inch onwards would either keep everything at the same size or enlarge it even more which is great and the only thing that really qualifies as an upgrade.

 

[LoneWolf]

I really know the limitations you have but if you can find a BenQ E2400HD or E220HD nothing like it

 

[SCHUMI_4EVER]

BenQ monitors are not sold here at all, pretty much the only BenQ stuff we get are DVD drives/writers and DVD discs.

 

[LoneWolf]

sad

I think the LG would be nice then