Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
knobber Jobbler
Executive Intervention Controlled Chaos
|
Posted - 2011.04.02 08:15:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Josefine Etrange
Originally by: knobber Jobbler Edited by: knobber Jobbler on 01/04/2011 17:45:22 Thats 3830x1200. Otherwise known as massive!
A single screen, even as large as 2560x1600 two 24's gives me more pixels.
1680x1050x2= 3,528,000 Pixel 1920x1080x2= 4,147,200 Pixel 2560x1600= 4,096,000 Pixel
So you get 51,200 more pixel, IF those 24" are FULL-HD, if they are 16:10 in the usual resolution you get even 568,000 less pixel. Further more in any case pixel denstiny should be in both cases higher on the 30" , which as well mean that you get with two 24" a bigger picture with lower resolution.
Get out! FULL-HD? My 24's are 1920x1200 (so I get 4.6m pixels), as are any good 24's (do not buy 1920x1080 monitors, they are overpriced TV's). Thats also 16:10. 1080p is 16:9.
|
Josefine Etrange
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.04.02 08:42:00 -
[32]
Edited by: Josefine Etrange on 02/04/2011 08:44:33 Edited by: Josefine Etrange on 02/04/2011 08:44:04 YOUR 24" are decent ones. Check the market, 16:10 starts becoming unpopular with standard consumer hardware. Furthermore, if 24" 1080p are overpriced TVs for starting at 142Ç, than what are 24" 16:10 screens starting at 225Ç ;-) (Samsung SyncMaster 2443BW 24" vs Hanns.G HH251DPB, 24.6", local prices)
Even when you compare two SyncMaster it is still a 56Ç discount for the Samsung SyncMaster 2494SW (169Ç). That is deciding between 3x24" at full hd or 2x24" at 16:10
|
knobber Jobbler
Executive Intervention Controlled Chaos
|
Posted - 2011.04.02 10:31:00 -
[33]
I don't think the 16:10 became unpopular, it was just another size that was manufactured so to cut costs everything is going 16:9. When I got my first one all you could get us 1920x1200!
I used to have one of those cheap Hansg screens at work and like acer I won't touch them. Not sure what the Samsung is like though. Good tvs but never used a Samsung monitor that can match a benq or Dell even with some shared parts. Eizio and ilyama are also very good brands I've used.
The way I look at purchasing a screen, it should be as good as you can afford. You sit there all day staring into it and its the portal to your pc so buying quality + pixels is worth it. To many times I've spoken to or read about people with the latest watercooled overclocked awesomeness but staring at it through a crappy old 20" widescreen or even worse, a crt.
|
cRazYf1St
Order of Anarchy
|
Posted - 2011.04.02 11:01:00 -
[34]
all this makes me tempted to replace the 720p 26" tv i got at christmas very cheaply, damn 1366x768
|
Adrie Atticus
|
Posted - 2011.04.02 11:14:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Josefine Etrange Edited by: Josefine Etrange on 02/04/2011 08:44:33 Edited by: Josefine Etrange on 02/04/2011 08:44:04 YOUR 24" are decent ones. Check the market, 16:10 starts becoming unpopular with standard consumer hardware. Furthermore, if 24" 1080p are overpriced TVs for starting at 142Ç, than what are 24" 16:10 screens starting at 225Ç ;-) (Samsung SyncMaster 2443BW 24" vs Hanns.G HH251DPB, 24.6", local prices)
Even when you compare two SyncMaster it is still a 56Ç discount for the Samsung SyncMaster 2494SW (169Ç). That is deciding between 3x24" at full hd or 2x24" at 16:10
Yea, 16:10 are becoming more rare in the cheap consumer market because you can shove out TV's and monitors from the same 16:9 assembly lines. Then again, all real monitors intened for any kind of work are always 16:10 or even 2,35:1. And they're only 400Ç a pop, which is not much for something which you spend staring at 5+ hours per day.
|
Julius Rigel
Sub-warp Racing Venture
|
Posted - 2011.04.02 11:19:00 -
[36]
Originally by: knobber Jobbler (do not buy 1920x1080 monitors, they are overpriced TV's).
Ahem. My "full HD" monitor was considerably cheaper than a TV. And also I don't need to pay for licensing.
I'd say something about enjoying 16:9 films on a 16:9 monitor, but this thread is obviously about statistical drivel.
|
|
CCP StevieSG
|
Posted - 2011.04.02 11:27:00 -
[37]
Moved to Out of Pod from EVE General.
|
|
Mashie Saldana
Minmatar Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2011.04.02 11:54:00 -
[38]
Originally by: knobber Jobbler Edited by: knobber Jobbler on 01/04/2011 17:45:22 Thats 3830x1200. Otherwise known as massive!
A single screen, even as large as 2560x1600 two 24's gives me more pixels.
Not sure if you clicked my link but I currently play on 5120x1600.
I might get a third 30" screen and run them in portrait mode for a 4800x2560 setup.
|
Josefine Etrange
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.04.02 15:31:00 -
[39]
Edited by: Josefine Etrange on 02/04/2011 15:31:44
Originally by: knobber Jobbler I don't think the 16:10 became unpopular, it was just another size that was manufactured so to cut costs everything is going 16:9. When I got my first one all you could get us 1920x1200!
I used to have one of those cheap Hansg screens at work and like acer I won't touch them. Not sure what the Samsung is like though. Good tvs but never used a Samsung monitor that can match a benq or Dell even with some shared parts. Eizio and ilyama are also very good brands I've used.
The way I look at purchasing a screen, it should be as good as you can afford. You sit there all day staring into it and its the portal to your pc so buying quality + pixels is worth it. To many times I've spoken to or read about people with the latest watercooled overclocked awesomeness but staring at it through a crappy old 20" widescreen or even worse, a crt.
Hey, my old CRT which I keep for years in reserver for any unhappy making monitor incidends delivered most likly a better picture than those hansg tfts.
As for the samsungs panels: Samsung can produce some of the best TN panels of the consumer market, as well samsung panels are used by a lot of different brands. Professinal eizo displays are a different league, actually any IPS panel is already on a different level. I don¦t know if the two compared Syncmaster of my expample are decent panels for their money, for any details I is always good to check some reviews first to check if chosen modell actually is a good series and if the used panels and backlite are proper working in the modell series. You get differences from series to series and even sometimes eizo screws up and produce overpriced "garbage".
Still the fact remains that if you chose a 1920x1200 setup you are giving up space and pixels as you can get 3 Full HD displays for the price of two 1920x1200. I would not buy any of it, as I have written imo 27" is the way to go, led backlite is the way to go and ips panels are worth their money if you are doing some actually work on your computer as well, furthermore color calibration is the way to go with any multi monitor setup in my humble option.
|
Vogue
Short Bus Pole Dancers
|
Posted - 2011.04.02 16:18:00 -
[40]
I have a 24" 1920 x 1200 Dell monitor that has very good picture quality - vibrant sharp images. But I don't play EVE on it in anything bigger than 1600x1200. But I do have a 3 year old Nividia 8800GTS 512MB. When I am dual boxing I have to turn texture quality to medium as I think the graphics card memory is exhausted.
.................................................. Fortress Of Solitude |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |