-
The contrast of this type of monitor is usually 1000:1, the dynamic one doesn't really matter how aggressive it is, it's more important that it's fast and adequate. The contrast is what indicates the difference in brightness between white and black, the thing is that with the dynamic one if a scene is black the monitor turns off the backlight so it's like it says it's infinite... because when you have an image with light and dark areas you'll just see the normal contrast which is what it is (1000:1).
Maybe you should explain what you want it for (instead of complaining about the rules ¬¬) and then we could help you, a monitor has many other characteristics to take into account besides contrast. The issue of blue light is because it's the one that tires the eyes the most, so for a person who spends many hours in an office, for example, writing and reading in front of the monitor, it would be an important characteristic, for a photographer it might be irrelevant.
Regards.
PD. They are also not 1ms, even being GTG, it will be with some "trick" (overdrive) and it's not real. If you care about response time you should look for a professional review to see how they are with ghosting. Also, speculating that you're looking for this for gaming, we have to understand that 60fps is equivalent to 16ms so it's not necessary either, and for video we usually talk about 24-30fps.
For those prices I would value a Dell UltraSharp IPS much more, the thing is that people see the 144Hz sticker and start to see better images, it's like mixing bacon with speed. I don't want to say they are bad but with these exaggerations they have been deceiving people for a long time.
Basically for gaming; FPS RTS MMO some MOBA we go the typical one, I come from a Samsung Syncmaster T190 19 inch 1400x900 2ms 75Hz (the one that broke) and now I'm with a Samsung Syncmaster 152s 15 inch 1024x768 and 7ms 75Hz. I've already put the equipment in #1; the graphics are Asus Direct Cu II 670 4GB.
– I've looked at the Ultrasharp in that price range they usually have from 5 to 8 ms; for the rest basically worse for gaming we go by what we've read.
-
If you're only going to use it for gaming, they'll serve you well, but as they've said, I think it's too much money for a TN monitor and all that stuff about special modes for FPS seems like pure smoke to me. Now that you're with an old monitor, you can see for yourself if you notice the difference. On the other hand, with large monitors you can notice a difference in color from looking at the center to the corners, which won't happen with an IPS, in addition to having a larger color space.
-
I personally would go for a more economical TN like the BenQ or if I were to spend more than 200€ I would put it towards an IPS (having a good image is also a good value for "gaming"). And think that it's also not for life.
-
So is this the most significant difference between IPS vs TN? >
> notice the flickering of the TN screen thing of that model or of se TN ¿?
Presuponia that the difference was in the colors and viewing angles only?
By the way IPS panels have very high response times 8, 7, 6 ms :wall:
– I also haven't mentioned it before but you already know that the asus can upgrade to G-sync with an nvidia kit and install it yourself! What do you think about that? (Obviously when the kit costs 4 bucks xD not now but in 3 or 4 years!) -
you went from one of 2 ms to one of 7ms and I give you one of 5ms
if you see the quality of these screens, you don't want a TN even in a photoLG 25UM55-P 25" LED IPS - Monitor - 175 euros
MONITOR 21:9 ULTRA-PANORÁMICO IPS
Screen resolution 2560 x 1080 Pixels
-
I like that LG although it might be a bit small, I would almost go for a 29" (they are 268€) for that format, the more elongated the smaller for "." But it has a very good price and for gaming those resolutions are great if it supports them.
-
Sorry, I should have mentioned it before because of the ergonomics, I won't be able to get a monitor larger than 24 inches due to the viewing distance issue, and even with a 24 inch one, I'll have to do some DIY with the desk and 3 planks :wall:
LG 24GM77-P 24 <> LG 24GM77-B 24 > Any difference between these models? I haven't found any, they seem to be the same, but from different batches, I think.
LG 24GM77-P / B 24 > < Asus VG248QE 24 / I'm torn between these two, I've put the BenQ on hold.
By the way, you mentioned the IPS monitors, but they don't go below 6 ms and don't go above 60 hz... for gaming, I think they're not very good, I don't know, but the colors are very vivid with more bits...
-
By the way, you mentioned the IPS monitors but they don't go below 6 ms and don't go up to 60 hz... for gaming I think they are very fair, I don't know, but the colors are very vivid with more bits...
I already explained that to you in my first comment, and what are you going to get out of a monitor with more than 5ms if you can know?
PD. I can only think of some reflex shooter like CS that you can have it constant at 200fps (5ms)... Although really with that monitor it would be better at 144fps/hz (that's already 7ms...) with sync.
There are also IPS monitors sold with more than 60Hz although few.
-
6 ms response time is very good, more than good.
For comparison, you could look at the response time of the one you have now.
Regarding the refresh rate, remember that we are not talking about CRTs where it did matter if you didn't want a headache after half an hour, nor of a professional monitor over 400 €: we are talking about a more than decent mid-range monitor.
From what I infer from your last doubt, I anticipate that with no game are you going to notice image jumps, delay in drawing or anything like that beyond the graphic capacity of your equipment. -
By the way, the screen tearing is caused by the synchronization, which is why a game limited to constant 60fps and with vertical sync looks better than one at 120 without sync and with frame spikes. Even so, the graphics when drawing 3D are not 100% synchronized with the monitor refresh rate, so you might want to look into NVIDIA's "G-Sync". That's why we insist that 60Hz with a stable 5-8ms G2G at 60fps looks perfect in any fast-paced game. The 120Hz disguise better when it's not synchronized, but it doesn't solve it either. What really works is a G-Sync or something similar.
Sure, 144Hz or 600Hz is fine, but it's not magic (that's why I wouldn't pay for it as such), I understand that the videos showing slow-motion recordings comparatively seem like a marvel, but it's not that noticeable at a glance. Just look at how consoles often work at 30fps but constantly so that it syncs with the refresh rate, that's what's important to avoid seeing cuts. For the rest, we have to understand that the eye has its limitations (hence the question) and this war of Hz that started on TV is done to artificially improve the fluidity of slow images (videos with low fps of action/sports images) NOT to visualize fast images (with many fps) well.
Sent from my iPad with Tapatalk
-
And a topic that I care about too; which do you think or consider to be less aggressive for the eyes for 5+ hour gaming sessions a day? TN or IPS? And why!- By the way, G-Sync is all very, very expensive monitors :wall:
The Asus can be upgraded but I don't even know what it's worth :S
- By the way, G-Sync is all very, very expensive monitors :wall:
-
Y un tema que me importa tambien ; cual creeis o considerais que es menos agresivo para la vista para sesiones de 5-+ horas dia en gaming? TN o IPS? y porque!
Que es una pregunta de examen o que? :ugly:
Es indiferente, en que va a afectar?. No deberías hacer sesiones de 5 horas, si lo haces es mejor usar un monitor grande, dejar distancia del monitor y tener buena iluminación. Sobre el tema de los azules hay gafas que filtran para evitar un poco el cansancio.
- Por cierto el G - sync son todos monitores muy muy caros :wall:
El asus se puede Upgradear pero no se ni lo que vale :S
Es algo bastante nuevo así que aun es caro, si da resultado imagino que se abaratará y se extenderá a más monitores. Personalmente no encuentro aun nada interesante en TFT con lo cual para que gastar más conociendo que están por salir monitores mucho más interesantes. Por ejemplo en teoría un monitor que te vendría como un guante saldrá en breve: Acer XB270HU (27" 2560 x 1440, IPS, 144Hz, GSync, USB3). Otro tema es el precio pero cuenta que este año saldrán cosas de este estilo (habrá avance de IPS y mejores resoluciones para monitores grandes) para 2016 estarán a un precio razonable.
- Por cierto el G - sync son todos monitores muy muy caros :wall:
-
What is this, an exam question or what? :ugly:
It doesn't matter, how is it going to affect? You shouldn't do 5-hour sessions, if you do it's better to use a large monitor, keep a distance from the monitor and have good lighting. As for the blue light, there are glasses that filter it to prevent some of the eye strain.
It's something pretty new so it's still expensive, if it works I imagine it will become cheaper and spread to more monitors. Personally, I still don't find anything interesting in TFTs so why spend more when you know that much more interesting monitors are coming out soon. For example, in theory a monitor that would fit you like a glove will be out soon: Acer XB270HU (27" 2560 x 1440, IPS, 144Hz, GSync, USB3).
Another issue is the price but keep in mind that this year things like this will come out (there will be progress in IPS and better resolutions for large monitors) so by 2016 they will be at a reasonable price.
Acer XB270HU = will come out aaaaaa 900 euros I read there, and I can't wait any longer with a 1024x768 monitor Ç=/
