OT: Large computer monitor

[The Natural Philosopher]

HD ready means it has the resolution, but not the HD tuner.

[The Natural Philosopher]

I don't think that is correct at all. Most computer monitors use TV LCD screens, thats why we have such odd sizes.

[Andy Burns]

HD Ready doesn't imply 1080, it could be 720.

[Dave Liquorice]

Yep, "HD Ready" was (is?) a marketing thing to shift below native HD resolution panels onto the uneducated.

[The Natural Philosopher]

I haven't actually seen any 720px TVS on sale ..when I was researching all the reasonable sized TVs nothing came uip less than 1o80, and a lot of them were 'HD ready'

So I think these days if it says HD its 1080. wherther its ready or not.

[dennis]

No HD ready meant it could display at least 720 pixels in height but not necessarly enough to do 1080 pixels.

Full HD means it can do 1920x1080.

Neither says anything about the tuner.

[dennis]

First hit on asda is a polarid HD ready TV, 1366x768 resolution.

There are many more still being sold to the unsuspecting.

[Martin Brown]

Think hard about what matters to you most and read some of the reviews to find out what irritating features the candidates have. I think I would find a 27" monitor too big at normal working distance. I prefer to have a 24" HD IPS screen with calibrated photoreal on screen images. (actually that and a 17" 4:3 on my desk)

If you are not trying to play games on it than the response time can be compromised without too much difficulty. Some things are a matter of personal taste so I suggest you go and look at the candidate monitors

*in the flesh* or you could end up with a pig in a poke.

If you want to do precise photographic imaging work or have a wide angle view without colour shifts then an IPS screen is best.

Beware that the "Out of the Box" LCD display brightness and contrast settings are intended for display in a sunlit shop window and will burn a hole in the back of your head or at the very least cause headaches!

[rbel]

It very much depends what you are using the monitor for. Having used Dell TN screens for work for many years I would agree that they are adequate for Office applications and games where speed of response is more important than colour accuracy.

Digital photography is a hobby of mine and, from experience, I would not use a TN screen for image processing, particularly if you want to produce good quality colour images and prints. As such I use a

1920x1200 SIPS monitor which has a remarkably uniform screen as far as colour and brightness are concerned and has served me well for the past 4 years.

[Andy Champ]

HD ready means it has at least 720 lines. That's all. NBG for a monitor by today's standards (although once I would have killed for it...)

Andy

[Andy Champ]

Eh? TVs are 16:9 in screen shape and in pixel count. What's not square about it?

My PC monitor OTOH is 16:10 and 1920x1200, so videos are slightly letterboxed to fit.

Andy

[Sam Plusnet]

That's the kind of value judgement we all have to make.

Since I bought my first PC in 1983 I've had 3 monitors, including this one. For that reason, I tend to buy the best I can reasonably afford - since it's going to be in my face for the next decade (deo volente).

[Mike Tomlinson]

In article , Roger Mills writes

The Dell U2711 doesn't, it'll only do 1920x1080 through VGA, Displayort and HDMI. You need to use the DVI with a dual-DVI capable video card to get the full (2560x1440) resolution.

I have one, bought before Christmas. It's fantastic. 379 of your earth pounds off ebay.

gawd. How hard is it to turn on Large Fonts, get a pair of glasses, press ctrl-keypad + in a web browser...

[whisky-dave]

compared to pc monitors

yes but look crap on a 40+ inch TV.

[dennis]

compared to pc monitors

from what distance?

All these figures need a distance reference. A 1" pixel pitch is a retina display if you are far enough away.

[Mike Tomlinson]

En el artículo , whisky-dave escribió:

1366 x 768 looks pretty damn good on my 40" tv over a VGA connection, as that's the native resolution of the LCD panel.