Pixel pitch - 0.264 mm
Viewing angle - +/- 60° (vertical) typical, +/- 70° (horizontal) typical
Luminance output - 250 CD/m2 typical
Contrast ratio - 350 to 1 typical
LCD surface coating - Hardness 3H, antiglare treatment
Backlight - 4 CCFL type
Response time - 25ms
This monitor was released in 2002.
What I would like:
I would like to get a wide screen monitor. 23-24 inches.
What I do:
I watch 720p/1080p TV episodes and movies, and play games.
Response Time vs. Ghosting
On my 8 year old 17", I do not notice anything like this when gaming. If it is there, I am so used to it that I fail to notice it.
I see new monitors have 2, 5 & 8ms response times.
I read that the methods used to measure the response time differ from manufacturer to manufacturer.
One manufacturer's 2ms could be another's 5ms. That being said, how significant/insignificant is the response time, truly?
To me, the difference between 2ms and 5ms or even 2ms and 8ms is so insignificant that I cannot imagine it making any visible difference during gaming.
I've seen some videos on YouTube showing what "bleeding" is. My current monitor does not suffer from this.
I would prefer my next monitor did not either and that blacks look deeper than they do on my current monitor.
My current monitor has a maximum refresh rate of 75 Hz. I can easily see the difference between 60 Hz and 75 Hz.
Even at 75Hz, I can see a trail when I move my mouse cursor really fast.
However, I have no complaints when it comes to gaming or watching TV/movies.
I've seen some 120 Hz TVs in stores playing I, Robot and it looks visually stunning. I know the difference between 30FPS and 60FPS. 120 Hz = 120FPS would probably look even smoother (which is great!)
I have read up about the static vs. dynamic contrast ratio.
I see typically monitors have a 1000:1 static and a 10,000, 50,000 or even 500,000 dynamic contrast ratio.
My PC is in my basement. The only time I go on my PC at night when my kids are sleeping and the lights are turned off so my monitor is the only source of light. There is nothing to reflect and glare off my monitor.
My 720p movies look amazing and blacks look black as far as I am concerned.
I would have to look at new monitors at FutureShop to see a difference.
16:9 or 16:10? I understood the latter is less common and more expensive.
For watching 720p/1080p TV episodes and movie, and gaming on a widescreen monitor, is one better than the other? Under which scenarios are these 2 applicable?
I have done some light reading and it seems that I should stick with LCD at this point in time.
I have checked some threads on here and have seen a myriad of monitors being recommended.
So basically, anything I buy today will blow this monitor out of the water, especially considering how dated the E171FPB is.
Movies and games look great and I do not notice any lag, but it may just be that I am used to it as I do not know any different. Perhaps if I were to play a game on a newer one like this one, I may be visually blown away and finally see the difference that 9 years of technology change makes.
I guess at this point I would be looking for the highest static contrast ratio for the most accurate color reproduction while remaining within a budget of $200 - $275.
The most important thing to me is color accuracy and image quality.
The 24-inch class Asus VH242H (the screen actually measures 23.6-inches) is considered to be a strong performer and exceptional value among similarly sized monitors. Excellent colors are not significantly marred by grayscale performance that's stronger with dark shades than light. Pixel response is fast enough to make the VH242H a good choice for gaming and movie watching, and the 1,920-by-1,080-pixel resolution can display a high-def image in all its glory without scaling or cropping. We saw some grousing about the lack of USB ports, but the inclusion of an HDMI input (but not an HDMI cable, unfortunately) is a major plus considering this monitor's attractive price tag. $169, ebay, $179 Sears, newegg customers rate 5 stars,pc mag and hot hardware gave exc reviews. I think its a good place to start.
Higher color accuracy over TN and VA (P-MVA, S-PVA, A-MVA) panels.
Some would prefer another monitor for gaming purposes, however, this monitor has a low response time (5ms) for an IPS panel. My current monitor has a 25ms (black-white-black) or 8ms GTG. Even though I could have a faster response time with a TN or VA panel, this monitor is still an improvement over my current one in this regard. Color accuracy is more important to me than response time, personally.
My current monitor uses a VGA connection compared to HDMI-to-DVI with the new ASUS. I found an informative post regarding VGA vs. DVI here: DVI vs. VGA - NVIDIA Forums
My current monitor has a contrast ratio of 350:1 (approx.) compared to 1000:1 (approx.) with the new ASUS.
This is where any modern monitor will show an improvement over my current one.