Change of Topic: LCD release path for next few months

[n7]

Look at what's in my sig.

An X1900 XT powering a 2560x1600 Dell
Believe me, not many games run all that well @ 2560x1600, so i just run them w/ a centered image (black bars around teh sides) @ 2048x1536 or sometimes just 1600x1200.

You could run stuff @ 1600x1200 or 1680x1050 or even lower on the 24"; the black bars aren't even noticeable really.
It feels like you're just playing on smaller monitor.

 

[BernardP]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Here is where I get confused, and hence my hang-up on 1:1 pixel mapping.

I know that my GPU probably can't handle a 24", but perhaps a mistake on my part to choose a lower quality LCD based on a component that I will have to upgrade in the next year regardless...and my next GPU will be able to handle 24" of LCD goodness.

But, for the time being, I thought if you run a 24" LCD at lower than native resolution, you can encounter a variety of scaling issues?

You are thinking right: Why, because of your current videocard, compromise on the only part of your system you actually see and are going to keep for a long time?

1:1 pixel mapping is mostly important for non-PC sources such as game console or BluRay player. Yes, you might have problems with non-widescreen games, but you will have these problems wether you use native resolution or scale to 1280x800 for example. Scaling at lower resolutions and 1:1 pixel mapping are two different things.

You have to make sure that the 1920x1200 monitor you get can scale at lower resolutions. I have confirmed on the Dell Forums and Hardforums that the Dell 2407 can scale to 1680x1050 and 1280x800. 1440x900 seems problematic though.

If the monitor can't do a particular resolution it by itself, you will have to use internal videocard scaling available with NVidia videocards. Basically, the lower-resz, scaling is done internally and a 1920x1200 signal is sent to the monitor. The monitor is displaying 1920x1200, but you are seeing 1280x800 on-screen, and for a game, the GPU load is related to 1280x800.

Also, the lower-rez, scaling won't look too bad on a 24-inch monitor because of the smaller dot pitch compared to a 22-inch monitor. In that respect, 1280x800 is a perfect 3:2 ratio with 1920x1200, so there are less "fractional pixels" involved than in scaling from 1680x1050 to 1280x800

Finally, a compelling reason to buy 24-inch monitors is the fact that 1920x1200 is the lowest resolution that can display a 1920x1080 1080i HD picture without scaling.

 

[xboxist]

OP:

I was in the same boat you are. I built a new rig late last year, and the monitor selection was my biggest hangup. Trustworthy web reviews are scarce for some weird reason (probably because monitor quality is largely subjective), and my local retail stores had absolute crap for selection.

The LCD market has decided that people would rather pay a lower price and get a larger screen. Which means that virtually every panel out there is a TN. To their credit, TNs are certainly better than they were a couple of years ago. But they still pale in comparison to any 8-bit panel (to me, at least).

I eventually decided to save up and buy the 20" NEC. It's just so much more vibrant and color-accurate than any of the other common models out there. Some scoff at the price tag. I say you get what you pay for. This should last me a long time.

--I'd let go of considering a 22", unless desktop space is paramount to you. The extra 2" does nothing but decrease your image sharpness, since they use the same resolution as the 20" widescreens.

--You mention disliking the flimsy menu buttons on the NEC. That is a legitimate gripe. But how often are you going to press them? Besides, that monitor comes with a remote.

--Speaker bar is held on with two screws. But I know what you mean, you'd rather not have it at all, which means you could probably get the monitor for a few bucks less if it came without it.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Well looks like I have come back around to a decision between the NEC 20WMGX2 or a 24".

At this point, whichever monitor comes down in price first will probably win.

 

[BassBomb]

Where do you live OP?

I was able to snag my NEC on sale, it was on sale from 650 - 600, then i had a 50$ off orders over 500$ coupon.. so it came to 550$ before shipping and taxes from BB.

CDN dollars btw. Too bad BB website in canada doesnt even show the silver model anymore

 

[shiro]

geez man everywhere I go it comes back to the comparison of TN vs s-ips/pva panels...

I've been looking at a new monitor to get for awhile now and have had my eye on the Gateway 22" monitor, since it has all the inputs I need (component/s-video/etc etc), 1:1 pixel mapping, and supports up to 1080i (though it says 1080p in the menu's product tour I would expect this to be achieved through some scaling and subsequent slight image quality loss)...

But again...the most common comment that people make comes back to TN vs the other "good" panels... and it's making me very confuzzled about what monitor to get lol.

I'm really looking for a monitor that I can use daily alongside my Dell 2001fp (S-IPS) panel, widescreen with support of at least 1080i (I plan to watch some blu-ray movies and hook up the ps3 to), which brings us to video inputs. I'm looking for at least component and s-video connections to connect my various devices to. On paper the Gateway has everything I could ever want in a monitor, but I just have no way to really determine whether or not I will enjoy the picture or not. I've seen and compared the 22" with the 24" Gateway monitors (TN vs. S-PVA), and though the 24" does look a bit more bright and vivid with the colors, sharpness and all that stuff with the text seemed to be pretty good on both...

I've read of a lot of people who eventually went with or exchanged their 22" for the 24" model, but I'm kind of on a budget here. Why of course if money were not a concern I wouldn't even be considering a 22" model in the first place...

Are there any other monitors that anybody can recommend that has component/s-video inputs, and is capable of at least 1080i, and is for around under $400? It would also be good to know if I should also wait to see what LCD's will be coming out that carry the options that I'm looking for. Currently the pickings are pretty slim for the feature set I want...

 

[n7]

1080i = 1920x1080.

Only way to truely get that is to get a 24" +.
22" will not do 1080i, & considering there are only 1680x1050 physical pixels on a 20-22" LCD, any upscaling is basically a sham.

 

[yacoub]

my only regret is not getting a second 2007WFP when I got mine (first run S-IPS). I don't mind the gradients because it's S-IPS and it owns.

 

[Starbuck1975]

my only regret is not getting a second 2007WFP when I got mine (first run S-IPS). I don't mind the gradients because it's S-IPS and it owns.

In scanning the Dell community forums, apparently some of the R04s are S-ISP...but again, you have to play the Dell panel lottery.

If I could guarantee an S-IPS panel on a Dell 2007WFP, my decision would be made, as the panel and price point are both attractive.