24" and 1920x1200

Kobrakai · 12 Oct 2008 at 11:08

Hi, Im considering getting a 24" LCD, probably this when its back in stock:

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showp... SM-2493HM 24" Widescreen LCD Monitor - Black

I was just wondering how small the 1920x1200 resolution looks on this? I noticed that the 26" panels have the same resolution so I was worried it might be a lot smaller on the 24"? Im currently using a 19" LCD in 1280x1024, would the text size etc be similar to this? Does anyone have a screenshot of their desktop in 1920x1200 on a 24"?

Also is the quality of this screen as good as the 22" Samsung's? I noticed that the 22" models have a higher contrast ratio and lower response times.

Thanks

bobert50 · 12 Oct 2008 at 13:45

The fact your even worried about it suggests they may not be for you.

The general attitude on here is that the 26+27" ones suck because they offer the same res but over a larger area but personally i find 24" @ 1920x1200 really small and much prefered 22" @ 1680x1050 over this, and i'd def prefer a 26" or 27" monitor if i ever went down that route again.

Tombo · 12 Oct 2008 at 13:55

24" @ 1920x1200 really small and much prefered 22" @ 1680x1050

the 24" has a larger dot pitch.

go.mole · 12 Oct 2008 at 13:55

I find the text size larger than my 17" LCD running at 1280x1024, but probably slightly smaller than the 19" LCDs we have at work.

It's the best dpi I've used

Kobrakai · 12 Oct 2008 at 14:25

Tombo said:
the 24" has a larger dot pitch.

Would I be correct in assuming that a larger dot pitch = text will look bigger?

What I mean is, will text on a 24” @ 1920x1200 will look larger than text on a 22” @ 1680x1050?

Sorry I’m not that knowledgeable when it comes to monitors.

Tombo · 12 Oct 2008 at 14:34

I find it looks pretty much the same, though it may be slightly bigger.

EsaT · 12 Oct 2008 at 16:08

Here's good page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot_pitch

Kobrakai said:
I noticed that the 22" models have a higher contrast ratio and lower response times.

Which are both 99% plain marketing excrement.

Zen8 · 12 Oct 2008 at 20:21

Tombo said:
the 24" has a larger dot pitch.

Not according to this link...

EsaT said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot_pitch

States the same at TFT Central

22"WS = 0.282mm (1680x1050)
24"WS = 0.270mm (1920x1200)
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/specs.htm

Aod · 14 Oct 2008 at 12:19

the pixel size on a 24" monitor that runs 1920x1200 is fine, as said above, its .270mm/pixel

things get really squinty when you're running 1920x1200 on a 15.4" widescreen laptop *shakes head*

you really need a bloody magnifying glass to use the damn things.

iamTakeo · 14 Oct 2008 at 12:22

I have a 22" samsung, crystal clear very happy with it. I also have a OCUK 24" 1920 which I use in my main gaming rig, I think the quality is better in the 22" samsung, definetly sharper on the 22" but I like the higher resolution.

Locke · 14 Oct 2008 at 17:32

24" and 1920 x 1200 is the best combo I've personally used, doubt I'll be changing for a few years, the writing isn't small at all... perfect IMO

I would post a Screenshot of my Desktop, but well... there's nothing on it except the Recycle Bin

.

Bradley8988 · 14 Oct 2008 at 17:44

just came changed from a 19" @ 1280/1024 to a 24" @ 1900/1200. Writing seems perfect imo and iv got used to it after just a few hours.

Credo · 15 Oct 2008 at 13:36

Bradley8988 said:
just came changed from a 19" @ 1280/1024 to a 24" @ 1900/1200. Writing seems perfect imo and iv got used to it after just a few hours.

What you've done is what I'm considering doing, 19" to 24". Would you mind explaining what you had to get used to (text size / clarity), and how your usage as far as desktop space changed? What are the key benefits of the extra space?

Sorry for so many questions - I'm going to have to sell this idea to my user base (wife and daughter)...

Kobrakai · 15 Oct 2008 at 21:49

Credo said:
What are the key benefits of the extra space?

err...you can fit more on the screen?

acccc · 16 Oct 2008 at 13:37

im even worse ive still got a crappy Dell 15", in need of a 24" so badly. although gaming at 768 isn't as bad as most people think it is...

Moeks · 16 Oct 2008 at 14:13

Hehe, well try gaming at 1920x1200 for a while and then go back to 1024x768 and say that

Credo · 16 Oct 2008 at 14:16

Moeks said:
Hehe, well try gaming at 1920x1200 for a while and then go back to 1024x768 and say that

Possibly daft question - does the high res of a 24" screen negate the need for high levels of AA?

Parsley · 16 Oct 2008 at 14:22

As the screen is bigger you will still see the jaggies but it will look better (or at least I thought that when I went from a 19inch tft to a 24 inch)

2x or 4x is usually enough for me though, I only turn it up really high when I am site seeing in the game. Once I am playing it I turn it down as I don't really notice the benefits when I'm running around shooting things.

Moeks · 16 Oct 2008 at 14:27

Credo said:
Possibly daft question - does the high res of a 24" screen negate the need for high levels of AA?

To a certain extent I find that it does yes. I guess it depends just how picky you are about them though. They are certainly less intrusive/noticable at this res.

Credo · 16 Oct 2008 at 15:44

Moeks said:
To a certain extent I find that it does yes. I guess it depends just how picky you are about them though. They are certainly less intrusive/noticable at this res.

Makes sense, thanks for the replies... for those that have gone from 19" TFT to a 24" TFT, is the test size as readable? I'm off tomorrow and going to Birmingham city centre, might check out the displays in Selfridges to see for myself...