When looking for a large screen monitor, what should we be looking for?
These days, the price of larger TFT LCD displays is falling. We can now find 24" displays for as little as $400 CDN ($310 US, $500 AUS, £210, €248, 6 million popsicle sticks). While 24" seems to be about the right size for most techie/gamer users, there is a lot of variation between the different manufacturers.
My primary usage would be graphic design and photography, my secondary usage would be general computing and gaming. I would also like to watch movies on it on occasion.
I am currently looking at the Samsung 24" Widescreen LCD Monitor, model 2493HM. Specs follow;
Mfr. Part Number: LS24KIEEFV/XAA
Monitor Type: Flat Panel
Analog vs Digital: HDMI, DVI-D, VGA
Brightness: 400cd/m2
Built in TV Tuner: No
Contrast Ratio: 10000:1
Maximum Resolution: 1920 x 1200
Other: HDCP Compliant (HDMI, DVI-D)
Product Dimensions: 56.50(W) x 44.75(H) x 25.00(D) cm
Product Weight: 8.5 kg
Response Time: 5ms
Also pluses with this particular unit are two ~4W down-facing hidden speakers, an adjustable stand that can move up, down, tilt and change from portrait mode to landscape mode, two USB 2.0 ports, and low power consumption when in standby mode. This unit can also be mounted on a wall.
The first thing I ask myself is, "What does all this mean?"
Some of the important things to me are, the inputs, the contrast and the resolution. Response time will also be important for things like games and movies. Also very important to me is the colour gamut, and does this monitor display colours correctly. Colour is very important for both graphic design and photography.
So anyway, I thought it would be nice to have a discussion about what technical specifications should one be looking for when comparing and pricing TFT LCD monitors.
The monitor you've mentioned uses a 6bit TN panel, which then uses dithering algorithms to get 24bit color, which often results in innacurate (depending on the processing) colors. TN panels also have inferior viewing angles (ie: they lose contrast or invert colors when viewing from the sides, below or above once you get past a certain angle) compared to other panels, but they do have faster response times, so for movies and gaming they can be better.
Matt88 --> Don't forget the "Thumbs UP!" Icon to the top right of the post. Means you can actually "do" something to agree :)
One thing: While I don't disagree with the above, expensive doesn't mean you get more for your money. Some careful research and finding out what panels go into what brands can mean you pick up a kick arse monitor for 1/2 the cost.
Case in point: my dual screens. Have a brand stamped on them that noone would know. But a small look under the hood; I got me X 2 panels that if they were in branded screens would cost a bomb.
Just a tip and you have to do your research. But there are only 2 or 3 (depending who you talk to) flat panel manufactures out there. Now take a look at the number of brands there are. You get the idea.
The other thing I would suggest is to look for and plan for dual screens. In other words don't get one that is massive. Finding that desk space for it's twin might not be possible, you'll want some serious desk space for dual 24" for example. You might not even get it straight away, but plan on it, once your using 2 you'll NEVER go back! Just consider that in your planing.
Also consider the video card that your getting in any new PC - make sure it is dual head. At least you'll have the option of dual screens. I had to fork out for a new graphics card. Not that I paid top dollar but at least you can avoid it if your thinking about it.
Find that cheap bargain and you may well be getting 2 :)
Personally, I would not focus too much on the wide screen. Most websites are not optimized for it and it is not as great as you might think. Yeah it is "good" but... I have 2 standard dual screens on the desktop and they are great. The laptop is a 17" wide and I don't see a huge advantage for the wide screen. Again comes down to cost; your going to pay more for the wide. But you might want that and if your watching movies on it then yup, do it.
The whole viewing angle thing; marketing crap. Like your going to use your computer at 170 degrees of the center... both my 42" LG and 46" Sony tellies you can view from any angle - not that you would want to. Viewing angle has become so good that there is little difference between CRT and flat screens now. They seem to be still using it as a stoopid selling point. Yes it was a big issue when LCD was a new'ish thing, not now. Yeah you might find that there are some slight contrast changes. But think about it, where do you sit when looking at a computer? Right... So while I agree with Atmo, I kinda think it is not something that should make a huge difference to your decision making process.
Just remembered, my laptop has the worst viewing angle of everything I own and it is not on the horizontal that is the issue; it is the damn vertical. I can go left and right of it NP - up and down - forget it. You don't seem to get this with large flat panels though - that are not in laptops. I wonder if that is because you can't... Meh, point is it is a flaming laptop - for your lap and the screen is hinged for a reason...
If you can get the HDMI then definitely try for it - there are a lot of video cards coming out now with that capability. Forget about Analogue, they are starting to become collectors items. Digital is becoming standard rather than the exception.
I know this has not been a very technical spec heavy post, there are others round here that know more than I do. I have just tried to highlight the things that I have found with the monitors and TV's that I have and the issues I have come across.
Hope my opinion helps Herne. I know that Tim is pretty switched on with this stuff so maybe he can give you some more tech specs to look for but I think that you need to use your head as well, don't get caught up in the hype. You'll get more bang for your buck.
That was crap loads longer than I thought it would be...
@atmo & matt88: I realize there's a tradeoff between 6-bit colour and 8-bit colour, but I think that if I look for an 8-bit monitor I will have to pay (at least) twice the price.
The 24" Samsung monitor I'm looking at, 2493HM, is only $350 CDN (regular price $430).
A comparable 24" Dell UltraSharp 2407WFP with 8-bit colour is $1395 CDN ($1100 US).
Whereas an Apple 24" Cinema Display will run you about $1000 CDN. (and I'm not sure it will work with a PC.)
I wonder if anyone has any experience with the Dell UltraSharp 2408WFP? I just found it in my quest to find comparable prices. It appears to sell for around $550 CDN. Although it has a slower response time and less contrast than the Samsung does, it apparently has a 110% colour gamut and is brighter than the Samsung.
I also realize that I will need to upgrade my video card, which was the whole cause for my quest for a new computer and/or monitor to begin with. I have an AGP (no relation) motherboard in my Pentium 4 machine, this is the cause of my problem. My current video card is only 128 MB (nVidia GeForce FX 5200), I wanted to switch to a 256 or a 512 MB but try finding an AGP video card these days, it's getting more difficult. So that meant I would need to change my motherboard to PCI Express and if it was going to do that, I might as well just buy a whole new machine... (Can anyone recommend a replacement AGP video card that's not going to kill my power supply?)
This sparked the whole debate on buying myself a 24" iMac which would become my main machine. Then the 24" Monitor would be running dual off of my iMac, the main monitor for my PC and for watching movies (possibly also for watching TV if it's HD compliant). The other option I would have would be to buy myself a new PC and run a single 24" monitor, or possibly dual 20's or 22's... I currently have a 19" CRT and a 20" CRT TV in my office, so anything else would be an upgrade.
So the debate continues--Best monitor for best value? What specs should I be looking for?
I'd echo Dave's suggestion of getting two smaller screens. I had a dual screen setup at work for a little bit and it was surprisingly good from a productivity point of view - emails and web on one and word/excel on the other.
Anyway, I don't know the first thing about tech specs of monitors unfortunately, only that I've been reading about the HDCP thing becoming more and more important if you want to watch films, especially from the iTunes store.
Also, don't forget to haggle... I've never paid full price for any electronics/television thing (apart from Apple who will never budge!), and a quick and polite "What's your best price on that?" will normally get a 5-10% reduction. People are desperate to make a sale especially with the Credit Crunch (does that sound like a breakfast cereal to anyone else?) :)
Herne my good man! Monitors... hmm, I have myself a viewsonic 22" screen. At first it was a bit fidgety with colours and some odd shimmering thing but now I'm not sure that it's used to being on it's fine. I use it a lot for watching TV on as well, so I wanted something larger. I'm not too up with the specs. I saw some glowing reviews in one of those PC mags that have more ads than articles. It was going cheap on pluscorp so I ordered it. Two screens would be handy for you depending for what you do. I have my laptop hooked into my 32" LCD TV so I'm watching less and less on this. A second screen would be handy for when I'm working and watching something in the background at the same time too. Ahh! You've given me ideas!!! I don't need more things to buy!! :D
I have an AGP (no relation) motherboard in my Pentium 4 machine, this is the cause of my problem. My current video card is only 128 MB (nVidia GeForce FX 5200)-herne
Having a look at your specs, I'd be upgrading my machine before getting a new monitor. You may as well go for a totally new box. Upgrading your AGP card just wouldn't be worth it.
My son has a Dell E248WFP 24" Widescreen it's only a 6 bit panel but it's pretty impressive. He mainly uses it for gaming so colour reproduction isn't that important (the blood looks red to me). Viewing angles could be a problem if he didn't just sit in front of it. Ended costing $316 after a Dell discount and 10% off with RACV membership - bargain.

I'm still waiting for Tim to poke his head in and see what he has to say on the subject... I figure if I pick enough brains, eventually I'll find the answers I'm looking for.
@tom125 I'm not sure where you buy your electronics, but I rarely find any place that will haggle. Most of the big box stores won't even take the stuff back once you get it out the door!
iMac iMac iMac iMac! :D
For my Apple purchases I go to the Apple Store and normally offer to pay more than the advertised price as they've stopped including useful stuff in the box - you want a dock with that iPhone... another $40 thanks. Grrr...
Anyway, most other electrical retailers here will go down on price - unless they're having a sale (which is every other week). It works well at Bing Lee where "Everything's Negotiable" and you're expected to haggle, but I've also had success at Harvey Norman (another big electrical retailer) and David Jones (a department store). Maybe it doesn't work in Canaydia though. Offer them cash and they should at least give you the credit card merchant % off it. :)
I HAVE BEEN SUMMONED BY THE ONE CALLED HERNE AND AS SUCH I AM NOW HERE!
Big question Herne, big question... but where to start...
The purchase of a monitor all hinges on 2 major factors, "What am I going to use it for?" and "What can I afford?"
As Herne has outlined in his first post:
"My primary usage would be graphic design and photography, my secondary usage would be general computing and gaming. I would also like to watch movies on it on occasion."
This tells me quite a lot about the problem to begin with.
So to break it down, he's going to need something that has an excellent contrast ratio (2000:1 probably won't cut it) and something that is a crisp as a newly minted pound note.
He also wants to do gaming, this means it's going to need to be at least 5ms grey to grey if possible 2ms.
Last of all to look at is connectivity, this might not be the biggest of requirements for Herne as he will more than likely use it off his PC, but if he ends up getting an iMac, then that will change, so we need to look at future proofing.
So the most ideal specs can be drawn from this, and as such he has already chosen well:
"I am currently looking at the Samsung 24" Widescreen LCD Monitor, model 2493HM. Specs follow;
Mfr. Part Number: LS24KIEEFV/XAA
Monitor Type: Flat Panel
Analog vs Digital: HDMI, DVI-D, VGA
Brightness: 400cd/m2
Built in TV Tuner: No
Contrast Ratio: 10000:1
Maximum Resolution: 1920 x 1200
Other: HDCP Compliant (HDMI, DVI-D)
Product Dimensions: 56.50(W) x 44.75(H) x 25.00(D) cm
Product Weight: 8.5 kg"
So these are the specs that would more than likely be optimum for Herne, and it has some bonuses that he's pointed out.
"Also pluses with this particular unit are two ~4W down-facing hidden speakers, an adjustable stand that can move up, down, tilt and change from portrait mode to landscape mode, two USB 2.0 ports, and low power consumption when in standby mode. This unit can also be mounted on a wall."
Now to look at the fine details of the bonuses.
the ~4w speakers will probably make most things sound like a coke can being scraped across a rusty tin gate when anything of considerable volume is played (being mp3s or games)
The adjustable stand is a nice feature but locks you into using their stand and setup, seeing that it is also wall mountable I'm sure there are plenty of other monitors out there that have similar setups or that you could buy standless.
Why I suggest a wall mountable model is because of the "Portrait Mode" that the Samsung monitor boasts. If you get a wall mountable model, and use a desk stand that is adjustable (like the Neoflex Arms KW uses, see AGP about a week ago) then you can turn ANY monitor into portrait mode considering that 99.8% of video cards support image reorientation.
The two usb ports are handy but ultimately useless (especially if he goes for an iMac since they have 3 standard and you don't want to take those up with extra monitor ports).
Low power consumption mode is a must these days, especially with the carbon footprint that most people leave I'm sure all of us gadget conscious people are hanging our heads in shame of the carbon emissions we must have produced over the years.
So this gives us a little more scope to go on, the idea is to look at the core features and not at the nice little extras that come with it.
This is where the hard part comes... Brand...
Do you stick to the known brands? Do you buy a Chinese knock-off from some random swap meet vendor?
You don't do either, what you do is look at monitors, you actually LOOK at them, the only way to make sure that a monitor is right for you is to have a look at them.
Any good graphic designer will tell you that the proof of the pudding is in the VISUALS.
If it looks good, you can see that it is sharp, you think it will be comfortable for you to use for hours on end then it is probably a good screen for you.
Now you don't have to look at every single monitor you want to buy, all you really need to do is look at the BRAND of monitor, especially the lower end, because if the lower end is giving outstanding performance then almost guaranteed their more costly models will deliver the goods even more so, of course there is no hard and fast rule with this so as always be cautious.
Also DO YOUR READING, I cannot stress that enough, forums, Cnet, ZDnet, independent tech reviewers, trade catalogs, and anything you can lay your hands on about the monitors you are looking at.
The best (and first!) place to go for information is the support forums for the monitors you are looking at. Get on the forum, type in the model number, and check out the complaints, if you can't find much there then you can be fairly sure that its a good pick.
Up until this point I have only spoken about features and specs, but there is one part that I haven't spoken about.
PRICE.
As with everything it all comes down to the Dollar, Dinari, Krona, Ruble or what ever you call the stuff that you don't have much of, but what little you trade for amazing whiz-bang technology and glorious pastries.
So the trade off is Price vs. Features, but what features do you trade off to save a few bucks, do you lose HDMI or 1080p HD? is it contrast ratio or screen size that you skimp on?
In every case this will come down to personal choice, if you have the need for screen real estate, then that will be the overshadowing factor, if it is refresh rate, or contrast ratio then they will take precedence over all others, and if its connectivity then it will be forefront.
As this is truly down to personal choice the factors as to what to choose then range from the mundane to the astronomical depending on your PC's hardware choices (which can vary greatly) and even down to the desk you are going to place it on itself.
So if you have a fair whack of cash then go nuts, but if you need to be more conservative, then your work may be cut out for you.
So in the quest for a new monitor Herne I wish you good luck, for it is a long hard road to follow, or if you have lots of cash, then its quite easy to by the biggest thing you can lay your hands on, either way, do your research before you jump.
Tim wrote all sorts of good stuff, but he didn't really tell me the answer I was looking for. Something along the lines of "buy this one" would've been good, Tim!

I have more to think about anyway. If I buy an iMac, the arguement of getting a better screen for graphic design is moot because the iMac's screen is pretty darn good for rendering colour.
If I don't buy the iMac I might be better off, as Dave says, to buy two smaller screens and getting more bang for the buck.
Either way, it's about spending money, which always sucks.
So bascially we're saying;
Brightness: A brightness of 400 cd/m2 (candela per square meter) is better than a brightness of 300 cd/m2. [Apparently a typical CRT picture tube has an average rating of 350 cd/m2.]
Contrast Ratio: A measurement between the lightest part of the screen and the darkest part of the screen (white to black). 10,000:1 is pretty much the standard these days, with higher end monitors going to 20,000:1. Also, apparently a static contrast ratio is better than a dynamic contrast ratio.
Response Time: The amount of time it takes for a pixel to change from off to on (or more often, gray to gray), measured in milliseconds. Generally gray to gray times are faster than black to black times. The smaller number the quicker the response and the less blurring from moving objects. An average response time for an LCD would be from 3-5ms for 6-bit colour.
Colour Gamut: Most LCD monitors render 6-bit colour (262,144 colours), which is not true colour, whereas 8-bit colour (16,777,216 colours) is more expensive, but it is more "true." In Graphic Design and Photography, it is desirable to view true colours. An average LCD will display 72-75% of the colour gamut. Better LCDs will reproduce 92% and high-end LCDs will reproduce 97-104%. Obviously a larger colour gamut means a higher price.
How to Tell if an LCD is 8-Bit or 6-Bit
If the manufacturer lists the color as 16.7 million colors, it should be assumed that the display is 8-bit per-color. If the colors are listed as being 16.2 million or 16 million, consumers should assume that it uses a 6-bit per-color depth. If no color depths is listed, it should be assumed that monitors of 12ms or faster will be 6-bit and the 20ms and slower panels are 8-bit. [Source: About.com]
So the question is yet unanswered... Which monitor should I buy?
@Herne - Yeah I could just go... "SAMSUNG SAMSUNG SAMSUNG, no no VIEWSONIC THATS THE ONE WOOOOOOO YEAH!"
But I still think its all personal preference these days, gone are the days where you could just go purchase the biggest CRT you could afford.
It looks like from the information above you are doing your reading, thats for sure which is one of the major points in my diatribe above.
I could also say "JUST BUY A DAMN iMAC!"
But then I'm biased... ;)
Oh, I know about Macs, I use a G5 with a 30" cinema display everyday at work... if only there weren't so damn expensive.
@Herne - Seriously? you are even contemplating an LG?
They make damn fine white goods and TV's but their range of LCD desktop monitors are a little lackluster, Samsung stands head and shoulders above LG, I mean just look at the LG site, and tell me that those LCD's on offer don't look like they came from the school of heartless design.
Grey, flat and functional might be nice in a corporate environment, but for home?
Just look at Samsungs range!
They are just dead sexy!
I was just looking at the T240HD...it looks pretty sexy, but I dunno what the price is yet.
For the love of technology, don't buy an LG!
I love my Dell laptop's WUXGA Truelife screen (1920 x 1200).
I also love the feet on a lot of Dell monitors, they're on a nice tiltable mechanism, very smooth and as a bonus they're cute.
You do have a point there Cait...
For the heads up on Dell Monitors... they use VIEWSONIC!
They are made especially for dell by viewsonic.
Still, I will look into the Truelife screens.
I also see that the 37" Sharp Aquos 1080p that I've had my eye on has fallen to $900 CDN ... hrm!
This Topic Is Locked To Guest Posts
It's been a while since this topic was active, if you'd like to get it going again, please post as a registered member
