My monitor, For My Eyes Only.
A PC it’s very nice, with a monitor (screen), it’s better 😀
To find a screen which corresponds to its needs maybe an interesting adventure!
As for a PC, it’s necessary to know what you want to do with. Word processing, internet, video, graphics, photo, games. Every domain will have its requirements.
There are some characteristics to be understood when you are interested in a screen. It is better to know their impact.
Although the official measure is the centimeter (cm), it is often expressed in inches (“, or 2,54 cms). It gives length of the diagonal of the screen. For games, it’s necessary to pay attention on the screens of more than 24 inches which have almost all a too important time of answer.
It express the number of lines (horizontal x vertical). It give one indication of sharpness of image which can be shown by the screen. It is necessary to know that for the LCD (liquid Crystal display), go out of their “standard” résolutions cause a fuzzy display.
It express by a report between width and height. You find normalized formats 4:3, 16:10 and 16:9, each having the adapted resolutions. Nowadays, 4:3 and 16:10 screens tend to disappear for the benefit of 16:9.
The reaction time:
It express in millisecond. It’s about the shortest time so that a white pixel passes at a level of grey (time of rise) and return to the white (time of descent). The most reactive screens are between 2 and 4 ms (recommended for a better fluidity in games).
The technology of the “slab”:
There are four categories of slab (screen), TN, MVA, PVA and IPS. Every slab have its hown specificities, whether it’s in depiction of color, reactivity or angle of vision:
- TN: the new generations, below 4 ms, are very reactive, but there is an itch during the reading of videos and the lower angle of vision is very reduced. The difference of fluidity sees itself in the naked eye with regard to the TN 5ms and more.
- MVA: with a correct reactivity (equivalent to the TN 8 ms in the games), they teem less in video and have an average depiction of colors.
- PVA: having a reactivity of 6 ms (equivalent to 8 ms MVA in the games), they have a better depiction of colors but teem more in movies.
Paving stones VA with a response time of more than 8 ms suffer from an effect of persistence.
- IPS: suffer from an effect of persistence but possess a good angle of vision.
Measured in candelas per square meter (cd / m2), an average value (less than 250) is recommended for the video (or the games in active 3D). For the office automation, or even for the graphics, a reduced value is recommended (110 even 90) to avoid the eye fatigue.
The rate contrasts of a screen is the relationship (division) of the luminosity of a white pixel by that of a black pixel. To have a good rate of contrast insures deep blacks and a good restoration of the dark colors. The rate of contrast is correct above 800: 1 and voucher in 1000: 1. Attention, most of the time this indication is false on the description of screens, and it’s then necessary to consult tests to obtain the real values.
Finally the ergonomics:
- The connections (VGA, DVI, HDMI);
- The presence or not of high speakers, USB port;
- The regulation of the foot, the access to the menus of regulations (OSD), etc.;
- Additionally the electric consumption and the possible standards.
A screen can also propose of the active 3D (it have to support a 120 Hz frequency) or passive. Furthermore, “monitors” (screens dedicated to computers) are not very strong during the reading of movies (the manufacturers do not integrate specialized circuits). It is then necessary to count on the PC ( multimedia reader) to prepare correctly the media.
And all this come with a price! A single screen cant do everything, otherwise it wouldn’t be funny. It’s need to make compromises with all this 😉
What do we make with?
All parametrize, it is very beautiful, but it will be necessary to make all the same the tour of the tests on the Internet to have more information (Digital Versus, Tom Hardware, customer comments, etc.). These pushed tests often make use of probes and benefit from real comparative between the various screens. A small tour of the forums is also a good indicator to find some model problems.
A small tour in store can as well be interesting, to see screens in action, on the condition of finding screens and what they are correctly settled 😉
As for the size of screen, it is better to refer to the graphic card. It’s the card “optimal render size” which is going to determine the resolution to which it is the most effective. From there, we can deduct a size of screen according to its native resolution (contrary to a TV, where the size of that this is going to depend on the distance of comfort, thus on the distance between the sofa and said TV).
Having bought an Acer PC (for reminder in 2009 and Yes, sometimes I live dangerously), I continued on my thrown.
The card equipping my PC had an optimal efficiency on 22/23 inches screens (ATI HD 4850). I thus looked for a versatile screen and having a good value for money. Furthermore, I also looked for a size(format) 16:10, less crushed than the 16:9 (better for the “word processing”). A correct response time for the game was also needed.
My choice finally concerned to Acer – V223WBbd, a 22 inches LCD with affordable price ($180):
Having a response time of 5 ms, an honorable contrast and correct colors, it also had options little common to the period for a screen of this category (as a guarantee of 3 years). Finally, it had a reduced energy consumption and respected a number of standards which were important for me.
The screen performed his office, pleasant during the games, correct for videos, good for text dispay, it brought me a comfort that I did not know with my preassignors screens LCD or CRT (cathodic). And the visual comfort, when we spend time in front of a screen, it has no price 😉
If the budget had allowed it me, I would have straightaway chooses two screens: one having a good quality of image for the video and word processing and a reactive screen for the game.
It will be for later 🙂