Suitable monitor for editing

DorsetDude

DorsetDude

Spud
Suspended / Banned
Messages
7,018
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi

asked this in the computer forum but only I gent replied, would ideally like to get more input before I part with my readies.

Basically need a new monitor to go with my new ALDI multimedia PC I got yesterday. Will replace my ancient 17" e-yama.:gag:

Was thinking 22" widescreen woul de more than adequate? Any one got any thoughts?

Is IPS techonologly worth paying out for? can get a refurb dell 2209 on ebay for £175, thats about my max budget.:thinking:

On amazon could get a brand new samsung LED bx2231 for same price.

Grateful for any advice :thumbs:
 
DorsetDude said:
Why? this is what Im not clear on

Think Id rather have 2ms response time than 6ms on the IPS, so what does IPS have that makes it so desirable?
Click to expand...
Better colour rendition. If you're serious about photos, colours tend to be important ;)

Google it for more info.
 
Personally, I think wide screens are unsuitable for one reason.. for portrait format the size appears half the size compared to a standard 4:3 monitor.
the Dell ultrasharp range are good and easily available.. If funds will stretch I would have two.
 
One you have a taste for IPS :cool: there is no way you will accept TN again :eek:

I was a bit of a "screen dummy" until about 6 months ago when I was asking someone in comet :gag: why the imac screens were better and he was saying something about "*** they have IPS technology mate".

Anyway after a bit of research I discovered about what makes them so very different from a "run of the mill" TN screen so I now have an HP ZR22w screen ;)
 
arad85 said:
Better colour rendition. If you're serious about photos, colours tend to be important ;)
Click to expand...
I'm only a numpty dumpty hobby snapper really, not exactly "serious".:geek:
Have tried googling without much success.

we11ingon said:
Personally, I think wide screens are unsuitable for one reason.. for portrait format the size appears half the size compared to a standard 4:3 monitor.
Click to expand...
Hmmm, I suppose where a 20" 4:3 will give you 1600x1200 a 22" wide is generally 1920 x 1080ish so I guess you lose 200 pixels approx in height. Cant see any IPS monitors in 4:3 format on amazon mind.

boliston said:
I was a bit of a "screen dummy" until about 6 months ago when I was asking someone in comet :gag: why the imac screens were better and he was saying something about "*** they have IPS technology mate".
Click to expand...

I think I need to go and see TN and IPS in action and make my own mind up. Tried PC world last night which was hopeless, no IPS monitors at all and the Samsungs I was interested in were just sat there with no inputs, turned off.

Cheers all.
 
This any good as an explanation?

Also;

From wiki

In-plane switching was developed by Hitachi Ltd. in 1996 to improve on the poor viewing angle and the poor color reproduction of TN panels at that time.[6] Its name comes from the main difference from TN panels, that the crystal molecules move parallel to the panel plane instead of perpendicular to it. This change reduces the amount of light scattering in the matrix, which gives IPS its characteristic wide viewing angles and good color reproduction.[7]

Initial iterations of IPS technology were plagued with slow response time and a low contrast ratio but later evolutions have made marked improvements to these shortcomings. Because of its wide viewing angle and accurate color reproduction (with almost no off-angle color shift), IPS is widely employed in high-end monitors aimed at professional graphic artists, although with the recent fall in price it has been seen in the mainstream market as well.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
DorsetDude said:
Hmmm, I suppose where a 20" 4:3 will give you 1600x1200 a 22" wide is generally 1920 x 1080ish so I guess you lose 200 pixels approx in height.
Click to expand...
Actually 120 - or 10% of the height...

If you do a lot of portraits, you can get a monitor that rotates.
 
Rokkin said:
This any good as an explanation?
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. Good explanation.

Continued browsing on Toms hardware I got to a comment:

"IPS vs TN: For the average user all IPS offers is higher prices and slower response times"

If anything I'd say I'm an average user. I need to go and look at some newer TN's in comet or somewhere and make my mind up!:bonk:
 
DorsetDude said:
Thanks for that. Good explanation.

Continued browsing on Toms hardware I got to a comment:

"IPS vs TN: For the average user all IPS offers is higher prices and slower response times"

If anything I'd say I'm an average user. I need to go and look at some newer TN's in comet or somewhere and make my mind up!:bonk:
Click to expand...

An "average user" is someone who probably has very little interest in photography, and certainly no interest in the quality of their photos as they probably shoot with a phone or a p&s camera and most of their photos are destined for facebook or suchlike.
 
Personally I use a 27" iMac @ 2560 * 1440. You can pick up the display for about £999 however make sure your PC/MAC can connect to it. Resolution and colour are simply outstanding. My long held view is a monitor should be the biggest investment in any system.
 
Personally, I've got one TN panel and one IPS and they are actually very similar once profiled. The problem is that TN panels can vary enormously in quality, whereas IPS panels are only used in top end monitors, so your choice is easier.
 
If you want a decent monitor you will be looking at serious cash. I use two 22" monitors that ive profiled and they work ok. I would like to spend £1200 on a monitor but think a lens would help me out better.

If your looking for good price monitors use ARIA in manchester http://www.aria.co.uk/Products/Monitors/

Its avery big company now, so no hassle with them at all. I remember when this place used to sell stuff off a wall paper table in the computer fairs!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top