New monitor help!

[Dee]

I just bought a new computer and now I need a monitor. Of course, after looking at dozens of them I came away with more questions and confusion! Not only am I confused about brands, but the tech spec numbers are a mystery. What numbers do I really need to look at? I'm finding refresh rates from 4sec to 12 sec, contrast ratios 700:1 to 1000:1, and resolution seems to be a consistant 1280 x 1024.

Is the 700:1 or 800:1 contrast ratio good enough for digital pics? I don't print my own pics, at least not yet, but I do need to accurately see what I'm doing in PS CS2!

Today I looked mainly at Samsung Syncmaster monitors. Any other suggestions?

 

[RiotNrrd]

Your best bet is going to be going to a shop and looking at them. Frys is a decent place to shop, near Houston. I use a NEC LCD 1850E, and I love it.

 

[TheNitroxinator]

I have a Syncmaster 912N from Samsung and think its great. Bear in mind I primarily use it to do Electronic CAD programming in a home office. For photo editing, it is considerably better than my M205 1400x1050 LCD on my laptop, but I do a lot of the photo editing on the road during down time on my laptop. My recollection is that the LCD screens do not exceed the quality of the best CRTs, but if you're not doing things professionally, it really boils down to being able to edit your shots to your satisfaction. When I was looking into monitors, Sharp was consistantly rated as the top quality LCD, I'm not sure if that's changed in the last year.


I don't tend to print my pictures, and as my gallery shows, I mostly resize them to 1280x1024 to fit my LCD for screensavers, wallpaper, and redistribution. As far as I'm concerned, the Samsung meets my needs.

 

[Warren_L]

It sounds as if those specs are fairly reasonable. The higher the contrast ratio, the better (blacks look more black). A higher refresh rate might be easier on the eyes. But I think that if you're getting into photo editing, a good calibration program is going to be important.

 

[Dee]

Riot....I'm a regular visitor to Fry's on I-45 S in Webster. That's where I bought the computer. I spent over an hour looking at monitors there today and just got confused!

Nitrox....the 912N is one on my list. The 970P has a contrast ratio of 1000:1 but is an extra $150 and it's a discontinued model. Just wondering if it's worth it or if the 800:1 models are enough.

Warren...I already have the Spyder ColorPlus calibration program.

Thanks

 

[glbirch]

Hi Dee,

Here's a fairly short guide on what to look for from cnet that breaks it down by intended use and rates a number of monitors:
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-7610_7-5084364.html?tag=tnav

Looks like you want an LCD. If you aren't gaming, refresh rate isn't critical. Decent contrast ratio is important. Check for bad pixels, you want as few as possible (none is my preference). LCD's have a native resolution where they are sharpest. Most of the 17" monitors seem to run 1024x768. I personally like higher than that for greater detail (meaning a 19" or larger monitor), but not everyone does. Suggest checking a few at the different resolutions to see what you are comfortable with.

Hard to be specific without knowing budgest and size preferences, but I've seen some decent monitors from Samsung. I myself am running a Viewsonic VP201S LCD and a Viewsonic PT775 17" CRT on my primary system and am happy with them both.

EDIT: Have to correct myself. Most of the 17" flat panels seem to be running 1280x1024 native resolution these days, not the lower resolution I suggested above. This is also the same native resolution that a lot of the 19" LCD's are running.

 

[Kim]

Most of the 17" monitors seem to run 1024x768.

Mine runs 1280X1024 quite happily. It's a Mitsubishi 17". I think the best thing to do is just go to a shop with a large choice and take a look at them.

 

[glbirch]

Mine runs 1280X1024 quite happily. It's a Mitsubishi 17". I think the best thing to do is just go to a shop with a large choice and take a look at them.

Sorry Kim, you misread my post. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. LCD monitors can easily run various resolution. Mine for example will run from 720x1280 up to 2048x1536, with about thirty different options in there. However, each LCD monitor has a certain 'native' resolution where viewing conditions are optimal. If you run your LCD at a different resolution than this you will have an image that is not as crisp, and possibly some distortion. If the monitor is to be used for viewing and adjusting high quality photos, this can be an issue.

Ah, here's a link that gives a little more detail:
http://www.abc15.com/tech/datadr/index2004.asp?did=12670

 

[Dee]

Hi Dee,

Hard to be specific without knowing budgest and size preferences, but I've seen some decent monitors from Samsung. I myself am running a Viewsonic VP201S LCD and a Viewsonic PT775 17" CRT on my primary system and am happy with them both.

Thanks for the link, it answered alot of my questions. I'm looking mainly at the 19" Samsung Syncmasters.

 

[Scubatooth]

Dee

i have some advice (but this is coming from a perspective of color management from start to finish. so im alittle more critical then the average person because i have to have accurate color for working on photos and scans of negatives and slides)

personally im at the point im replacing my Lacie 21 CRTs(because there going downhill, and cant hold a calibration for more then 2-3 days) that i have used for over 3 years with no problems till now. currently im looking at the Samsung 204T as the screens i will be getting, i was looking at the 214T but the price difference doesnt make it worth.

as for the contrast issue really wouldnt worry about it because the numbers that the manufactures publish i dont think there accurate. All that really matters to me that a screen can accurately do a 256 step Black to White strip and have a natraul color rendition before calibration.

if you have any questions about monitors let me know

Tooth