Pages: 1

 

Poll

Which one?

Normal One60%60% - 17
Wide Screen35%35% - 10
Other. Pls post a pic or something3%3% - 1
Total: 28
2007-01-02 04:36:32
RDMC
Enemy Wheelbarrow Spotted..!!
+736|7022|Area 51
Hi there

I'm currently looking for a new LCD Monitor and so far I've narrowed it down to 2 different monitors:
Both 19 inch but one is normal and the other one is widescreen. If you had to choose which one would you take? If you like do not like both pls post an alternative if you want to

http://www.alternate.nl/html/product/de … hData=true

http://www.alternate.nl/html/productDet … tno=V3LB22

Thnx in advance

RDMC

Last edited by RDMC(2) (2007-01-02 04:36:58)

2007-01-02 04:40:49
Executiator
Member
+69|6878
depends, wide screen makes stuff way fatter than normal, which I don't like, but some people like it cuz it makes shit easier to aim at and hit.

I'd go w/ normal, I have an LG 19" LCD and I absolutely love it, made gaming much more enjoyable.


EDIT: BTW LG is a huge brand name and makes quality merchandise, I've never heard of this belinea co.

LG normal all the way mah man


EDIT: EDIT: LG's also tend to not have a reflective screen, instead they have a matted kinda look, so they wont glare at you, if thats a problem.

Last edited by Executiator (2007-01-02 04:44:05)

2007-01-02 04:41:33
jsnipy
...
+3,277|6979|...

the second has a faster response time (does not say of it g2g or b2w), I would be inclined to go with that one. (even though the first one has an awesome contrast ratio)
2007-01-02 04:44:30
TheDarkRaven
ATG's First Disciple
+263|7081|Birmingham, UK
I can recommend any GNRs. Perhaps a little large ms refresh rate, but I like it!
2007-01-02 04:44:36
DoctorFruitloop
Level 13 Wrongdoer
+515|7003|Doncaster, UK
It's pretty much personal preference. BF2 and BF2142 can be forced into a widescreen resolution but you lose a liitle field of view at the top and bottom.

The LG has a 8ms response time which is good, the Bilinea has 5ms which is better but whether you would see a massive difference in general use is arguable.

If you only ever play games then I would probably say go with the LG, if you spend a lot of time on documents and image editing, the widescreen would probably be a better choice but thats just MHO.
2007-01-02 04:47:57
RDMC
Enemy Wheelbarrow Spotted..!!
+736|7022|Area 51
If you only ever play games then I would probably say go with the LG, if you spend a lot of time on documents and image editing, the widescreen would probably be a better choice but thats just MHO.
Its for my dad and he usually only plays games on this PC and does the internets and documents things on his laptop, so the LG is the best for him I guess?
2007-01-02 04:59:53
aardfrith
Δ > x > ¥
+145|7249
Some game naturally support widescreen, some do not.  The ones that don't can generally be forced into widescreen mode but, as the good Doctor said above, you lose some field view.  Typically, I think, EA games do not support widescreen.

The other thing about widescreen is that it's marginally smaller than normal.  A 19" widescreen showing 1440x900 is about 1% smaller than a 19" showing 1280x1024.  So why people say it's better for working is beyond me.

LG has a proven reputation for good monitors.  As does Viewsonic - I have a VX924 and at a LAN last summer, I thought the VX models were showing the best pictures around - and Belinea has a good reputation for making cheap monitors.

Response times are pretty much useless beyond a certain point.  The human eye can register change 50 times a second, i.e. 20ms.  Anything that's got a response time below 20ms is perfect for gaming.  So you won't notice a difference between 5ms and 8ms.
2007-01-02 05:03:12
RDMC
Enemy Wheelbarrow Spotted..!!
+736|7022|Area 51

aardfrith wrote:

Some game naturally support widescreen, some do not.  The ones that don't can generally be forced into widescreen mode but, as the good Doctor said above, you lose some field view.  Typically, I think, EA games do not support widescreen.

The other thing about widescreen is that it's marginally smaller than normal.  A 19" widescreen showing 1440x900 is about 1% smaller than a 19" showing 1280x1024.  So why people say it's better for working is beyond me.

LG has a proven reputation for good monitors.  As does Viewsonic - I have a VX924 and at a LAN last summer, I thought the VX models were showing the best pictures around - and Belinea has a good reputation for making cheap monitors.

Response times are pretty much useless beyond a certain point.  The human eye can register change 50 times a second, i.e. 20ms.  Anything that's got a response time below 20ms is perfect for gaming.  So you won't notice a difference between 5ms and 8ms.
K thank you I guess I'll be going for the LG then
2007-01-02 05:03:45
Executiator
Member
+69|6878

RDMC(2) wrote:

aardfrith wrote:

Some game naturally support widescreen, some do not.  The ones that don't can generally be forced into widescreen mode but, as the good Doctor said above, you lose some field view.  Typically, I think, EA games do not support widescreen.

The other thing about widescreen is that it's marginally smaller than normal.  A 19" widescreen showing 1440x900 is about 1% smaller than a 19" showing 1280x1024.  So why people say it's better for working is beyond me.

LG has a proven reputation for good monitors.  As does Viewsonic - I have a VX924 and at a LAN last summer, I thought the VX models were showing the best pictures around - and Belinea has a good reputation for making cheap monitors.

Response times are pretty much useless beyond a certain point.  The human eye can register change 50 times a second, i.e. 20ms.  Anything that's got a response time below 20ms is perfect for gaming.  So you won't notice a difference between 5ms and 8ms.
K thank you I guess I'll be going for the LG then
lol, did you even read my post?
2007-01-02 05:06:32
DoctorFruitloop
Level 13 Wrongdoer
+515|7003|Doncaster, UK
I think the main reason people tout WS over 4:3 for actually working is that you can comfortably get 2 pages of a document open on a WS monitor see layout on bigger projects. Also, most images tend to be nearer WS ratio than 4:3 and so a full image can be worked on better. Personally I think it's borderline between the two and while you're playing games that do not have native support for WS you might as well stick with 4:3.

Until EA start to natively support WS I'll be staying with my 19" 4:3 and saving my money.
2007-01-02 05:08:50
RDMC
Enemy Wheelbarrow Spotted..!!
+736|7022|Area 51

Executiator wrote:

RDMC(2) wrote:

aardfrith wrote:

Some game naturally support widescreen, some do not.  The ones that don't can generally be forced into widescreen mode but, as the good Doctor said above, you lose some field view.  Typically, I think, EA games do not support widescreen.

The other thing about widescreen is that it's marginally smaller than normal.  A 19" widescreen showing 1440x900 is about 1% smaller than a 19" showing 1280x1024.  So why people say it's better for working is beyond me.

LG has a proven reputation for good monitors.  As does Viewsonic - I have a VX924 and at a LAN last summer, I thought the VX models were showing the best pictures around - and Belinea has a good reputation for making cheap monitors.

Response times are pretty much useless beyond a certain point.  The human eye can register change 50 times a second, i.e. 20ms.  Anything that's got a response time below 20ms is perfect for gaming.  So you won't notice a difference between 5ms and 8ms.
K thank you I guess I'll be going for the LG then
lol, did you even read my post?
Yes I did, you said ''LG all the way man''
2007-01-02 05:35:50
Stormscythe
Aiming for the head
+88|7006|EUtopia | Austria

Executiator wrote:

I'd go w/ normal, I have an LG 19" LCD and I absolutely love it, made gaming much more enjoyable.


EDIT: BTW LG is a huge brand name and makes quality merchandise, I've never heard of this belinea co.

LG normal all the way mah man


EDIT: EDIT: LG's also tend to not have a reflective screen, instead they have a matted kinda look, so they wont glare at you, if thats a problem.
QFT! LG FTW!
So now, enough of that What LG do you own, Exe~?


So, now to the topic:

- Response times matter: 8ms with overdrive can work out well, but I've got 2ms and I love it. There IS a difference between 16ms and 2, since the human eye notices much more than aardfrith mentioned here. Especially as far as colour and light/dark changes are concerned, you will certainly notice them. Also, response time ‡ refreshment rate, please keep that in mind when talking about noticeable effects on the eye. Response time over 8ms has been proven to be visible, I even wasn't satisfied with those 8ms and went for 2ms which i'm happy with (Just go to a huge electronic store with many screens exhibited and let them be demonstrated to you - but buy them, where they are cheaper )
- Wide screens are there for one purpose - office use. They have a screen ratio of 16:10 which doesn't even qualify them for proper video play since this would be 16:9 or even higher.
WIth 4:3 or even 5:4 (which is 1280x1024) you receive more screen at the same 19" (maximum would be 1:1, square)
- Spend a little more on your screen, your eyes will thank you. Something around 350€ ( i got my LG 1970HR for 330€) are truly worth the money - if you can somehow afford this, go with it.

Last edited by Stormscythe (2007-01-02 06:25:54)

2007-01-02 05:37:45
killinzero1
Member
+14|6844
get a secptre www.secptre.com
2007-01-02 05:41:37
Madiz
is back
+26|7213
I have this one http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a … 6824001085 it good gaming monitor.
https://i524.photobucket.com/albums/cc328/Madiz991/signa.jpg
2007-01-02 05:51:02
Executiator
Member
+69|6878

Stormscythe wrote:

Executiator wrote:

I'd go w/ normal, I have an LG 19" LCD and I absolutely love it, made gaming much more enjoyable.


EDIT: BTW LG is a huge brand name and makes quality merchandise, I've never heard of this belinea co.

LG normal all the way mah man


EDIT: EDIT: LG's also tend to not have a reflective screen, instead they have a matted kinda look, so they wont glare at you, if thats a problem.
QFT! LG FTW!
So now, enough of that What LG do you own, Exe~?


So, now to the topic:

- Response times matter: 8ms with overdrive can work out well, but I've got 2ms and I love it. There IS a difference between 16ms and 2, since the human eye notices much more than the aardfrith mentioned here. Especially as far as colour and light/dark changes are concerned, you will certainly notice them. Also, response time ‡ refreshment rate, please keep that in mind when talking about noticeable effects on the eye. Response time over 8ms has been proven to be visible, I even wasn't satisfied with those 8ms and went for 2ms which i'm happy with (Just go to a huge electronic store with many screens exhibited and let them be demonstrated to you - but buy them, where they are cheaper )
- Wide screens are there for one purpose - office use. They have a screen ratio of 16:10 which doesn't even qualify them for proper video play since this would be 16:9 or even higher.
WIth 4:3 or even 5:4 (which is 1280x1024) you receive more screen at the same 19" (maximum would be 1:1, square)
- Spend a little more on your screen, your eyes will thank you. Something around 350€ ( i got my LG 1970HR for 330€) are truly worth the money - if you can somehow afford this, go with it.
I have the LG 1918Q.

It's got UBS's on the back and a blue power button and I love it, got it super discount cuz all the new models were coming out, probably got the last one in the state.
2007-01-02 06:08:46
aardfrith
Δ > x > ¥
+145|7249

Stormscythe wrote:

Executiator wrote:

I'd go w/ normal, I have an LG 19" LCD and I absolutely love it, made gaming much more enjoyable.


EDIT: BTW LG is a huge brand name and makes quality merchandise, I've never heard of this belinea co.

LG normal all the way mah man


EDIT: EDIT: LG's also tend to not have a reflective screen, instead they have a matted kinda look, so they wont glare at you, if thats a problem.
QFT! LG FTW!
So now, enough of that What LG do you own, Exe~?


So, now to the topic:

- Response times matter: 8ms with overdrive can work out well, but I've got 2ms and I love it. There IS a difference between 16ms and 2, since the human eye notices much more than the aardfrith mentioned here. Especially as far as colour and light/dark changes are concerned, you will certainly notice them. Also, response time ‡ refreshment rate, please keep that in mind when talking about noticeable effects on the eye. Response time over 8ms has been proven to be visible, I even wasn't satisfied with those 8ms and went for 2ms which i'm happy with (Just go to a huge electronic store with many screens exhibited and let them be demonstrated to you - but buy them, where they are cheaper )
- Wide screens are there for one purpose - office use. They have a screen ratio of 16:10 which doesn't even qualify them for proper video play since this would be 16:9 or even higher.
WIth 4:3 or even 5:4 (which is 1280x1024) you receive more screen at the same 19" (maximum would be 1:1, square)
- Spend a little more on your screen, your eyes will thank you. Something around 350€ ( i got my LG 1970HR for 330€) are truly worth the money - if you can somehow afford this, go with it.
You're right, I get confused between response time and refresh rate.

Oops.
2007-01-02 06:12:16
Polux
H@x ?? No, just skill baby !
+73|7104|I smell corners
I just bought this one http://www.cnet.com.au/desktops/monitor … 140,00.htm for 260€ and it's very nice
2007-01-02 06:31:18
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7038|SE London

Executiator wrote:

depends, wide screen makes stuff way fatter than normal, which I don't like, but some people like it cuz it makes shit easier to aim at and hit.

I'd go w/ normal, I have an LG 19" LCD and I absolutely love it, made gaming much more enjoyable.


EDIT: BTW LG is a huge brand name and makes quality merchandise, I've never heard of this belinea co.

LG normal all the way mah man
This post is very wrong. If you set games up to run in a widescreen resolution they do not look fat because they've been rendered at the right resolution for the screen.

Belinea make better monitors than LG (not that LG don't make good monitors).

@Polux: The one you bought looks very nice. For about 50 Euros more you could've got a 22" Belinea though - 3 extra inches of joy.
2007-01-02 06:35:51
Executiator
Member
+69|6878

Bertster7 wrote:

Executiator wrote:

depends, wide screen makes stuff way fatter than normal, which I don't like, but some people like it cuz it makes shit easier to aim at and hit.

I'd go w/ normal, I have an LG 19" LCD and I absolutely love it, made gaming much more enjoyable.


EDIT: BTW LG is a huge brand name and makes quality merchandise, I've never heard of this belinea co.

LG normal all the way mah man
This post is very wrong. If you set games up to run in a widescreen resolution they do not look fat because they've been rendered at the right resolution for the screen.

Belinea make better monitors than LG (not that LG don't make good monitors).

@Polux: The one you bought looks very nice. For about 50 Euros more you could've got a 22" Belinea though - 3 extra inches of joy.
Have you ever watched a full screen movie and wide screen movie on a widescreen tv? widescreen on wide screen = super fat.

Wide screen on a full screen tv = less fat.
2007-01-02 06:39:15
Stormscythe
Aiming for the head
+88|7006|EUtopia | Austria

Bertster7 wrote:

Belinea make better monitors than LG (not that LG don't make good monitors).
Any references?
2007-01-02 09:12:35
The Stillhouse Kid
Licensed Televulcanologist
+126|7099|Deep In The South Of Texas

Executiator wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Executiator wrote:

depends, wide screen makes stuff way fatter than normal, which I don't like, but some people like it cuz it makes shit easier to aim at and hit.

I'd go w/ normal, I have an LG 19" LCD and I absolutely love it, made gaming much more enjoyable.


EDIT: BTW LG is a huge brand name and makes quality merchandise, I've never heard of this belinea co.

LG normal all the way mah man
This post is very wrong. If you set games up to run in a widescreen resolution they do not look fat because they've been rendered at the right resolution for the screen.

Belinea make better monitors than LG (not that LG don't make good monitors).

@Polux: The one you bought looks very nice. For about 50 Euros more you could've got a 22" Belinea though - 3 extra inches of joy.
Have you ever watched a full screen movie and wide screen movie on a widescreen tv? widescreen on wide screen = super fat.

Wide screen on a full screen tv = less fat.
That's because the fullscreen image is being stretched to fill the widescreen. In a game it can work 3 ways:

1. Stretched and shitty looking
Example:NASCAR Thunder 2004

2. Vert-, where the top an bottom of the fullscreen image are cut, making a "wide" image
Example:America's Army

3. Hor+, where the field of view is correctly changed, adding to the sides of the image
Example:Call of Duty 2

Obviously 3 is the the best way to do widescreen, and how games with native WS support work. Games that require "hacks" to work with widescreen use methods 1 or 2. BF2 for instance uses method 2.

 

Pages: 1

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard