[colore]

hello

can you tell me (with arguements) what monitor is the best from these two:

LG Flatron L194WT and LG Flatron L1970HR

click here for a comparison

ofcourse, if you think that another 19" monitor is better than those two above, please feel free to say it

thanks

[ripken204]

they are basically the same except that one is widescreen and one is not.

[puntoMX]

With other words: Normaly it has 1280*1024, but the widescreen version will give you 1440*900.

I personaly like the widescreens more when I´m on the net, work with Exel or using 3D rendering apps. If you do video editing I would go for the widescreen as well b/c of the timelines (edit bars). For games, personaly I like the square sceens better and for movies the widescreens.

[evilkorn]

I mostly do graphic design and have two 19" monitors 4x3 aspect ratio and find it great. But I really didn't have a problem with one 4x3 and I find the 16x9 monitors don't really fit that well on my desktops and look kind of awkward when matched up to extend the desktop. You might be able to make a case for 16x9 monitors if you watch movies, but I really don't know anyone with a tv/dvd player that sit in front of a desktop and watch movies on a moniter -HD monitors are a different subject-.

I don't play any games at all so I really can't comment on that argument.

[nmX.Memnoch]

Actually most widescreen LCD monitors are 16:10.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...o_Standards.png

I have two 24" widescreen monitors on my desk at work. The extra screen real estate is awesome when viewing/working on scripts, graphics, web pages, multiple RDP sessions, etc, etc. 1920x1200 * 2 = Good Thing™

Most all the widescreens below 24" have a 1680x1050 native resolution.

[TravisO]

The Samsung 19" is very good and the price is fair. IMHO Samsung is making the best ones for the price, they use to make all of Dell's monitors, which is how they become so infamous, although back in 2006 Dell switched to another company (to save money I think).

Personally I would suggest you get a 1600x1200 monitor (which are almost always 20") because if you want a play a high end game that you can't handle at your 19"s native resolution of 1280x1024, if you had a 20" 1600x1200 you could play the game in 800x600 and still be in a native resolution, so it will give a non blurred image.

Also, don't get obsessed on Response Times, 2ms IS NOT always better than 6ms because companies are now measuring only parts of the monitor, not the entire screen. The dirty secret is, the fastest monitors on the market probably have a full screen redraw of 8ms or 6ms at best. It really depends on the company. Contrast ratio is also vastly overrated, you don't want to go blind staring at an overly bright screen, but as long as you can adjust it lower, I guess it doesn't matter.

But imho, no matter what you buy on today's market, as long as it's a brand name, you'll be happy with.

My setup at work are two 20" 1600x1200 Dell monitors that are rotated, so in a way I get a virtual 30" screen, as long as you can ignore the bevels in the center (about an inch wide). I do mostly coding, and I find it's better to work rotated as code fits in 1200 width anyways, so I might as well enjoy the extra height to see more. It also gives me more than enough room to display a page at true size and still have room for toolbars and such (ex: Word, Photoshop).

This post has been edited by TravisO: 27 March 2007 - 08:43 AM

[colore]

thanks

I basically want a monitor that will be less eye-irritating and I dont do professional photo/video editing etc

apart from wide-screen and resolution there are few more important differences:

1) Pixel Pitch: 0.283 mm and 0.294 mm
2) Contrast Ratio: 2000:1 and 3000:1

there seem to be some differences of about 10° in "Viewing Angle" and 3 ms in "Response Time" which I dont know if they are important

[puntoMX]

Widescreen versions have smaller pixels in general so that would explain a smaller pixel pitch.

The contrast ratio would be important when you really want black to be black, the higher the contrast rate the darker the screen can get; the crystals inside the screen block the white backlight better.

[colore]

I noticed something else:

while there is a constant progress from companies to increase Contrast Ratio and to lower Response Time, they dont try to increase Brightness...

why? is 300cd/m2 enough and thats why they dont try to increase it?

in the past there where lcd monitors with 500+ cd/m2 brightness, but now all new models seem to have about 300 cd/m2

does anyony know why?

[ripken204]

b/c you just dont need it that bright. 300cd/m2 is pleanty bright(for me at least).