250cd/m2 or 300cd/m2

rossiboy001 · 21 Sep 2011 at 21:49

Recently bought a asus 27 inch which is great , but it highlighted the deficiencies of our older 22 inch lg flatron , Its only 3 years old but has spent all its life on 100% brightness .
Reserching I know realise that this premerturely ages the back light and hence a dimmer screen . Therefore Iv decided to bite the bullet and replace this as well , me daughter dont want her older brothers hand me down anyway ! .
Looking for a 22/24 inch LED . My thinking If anyone can back me up on my theory is a monitor with a higher rated brightness ie the 300cd/m2 as apposed to 250cd/m2 versions will last longer and be better value in the long run .
My thinking is . As I use from new it will be overbright like the azus 27 inch , but as time passes I will have much more scope to add a notch of brightness to compensate . The 250cd/m2 will have less scope being set nearer the maximum brightness from new ?
On that thinking Am looking at the asus VH247H 24 inch LED . It specs on paper look suitable as an all rounder , However Its hard to find reviews on this monitor , and the ones I have found look unfavourable regarding gaming and ghosting . Any other suggestions Please . Thanks all .

aatu · 22 Sep 2011 at 01:04

Apparently the desired brightness is 120cd/m2, isn't it? At least that's what all calibrations try to achieve...?

That's why most people set down the brightness of a new monitor to even all the way to 0-20%, which is bad if the monitor uses PWM to control the brightness (which the great majority do). PWM lowers the duty cycle of the light source, and that causes more noticeable flicker, and some people can get tired eyes and headaches from that, even if they don't "notice" the flicker. (Don't quote me on this, this is just how I've understood it)

PS. It's not like the old 60Hz CRT flicker. Most people don't even notice the LCD backlight flicker and are fine watching it for longer periods of time. But I just thought it might be something to consider if you're using it for many hours a day.

Trana · 22 Sep 2011 at 07:32

Not that important but 250 over 300 if those are the only alternatives for the reason aatus just said.

PCM2 · 22 Sep 2011 at 10:10

The backlight technology and efficiency is much more important than the rated output - especially if you're talking a 50 cd/m2 difference! Remember that this is the rated maximum luminance and often the actual recorded differences can be +/- 30-80cd/m2 from this value anyway. As mentioned above you won't be wanting to run the monitor at anywhere near that luminance value. Some people do like settings their monitors very bright but that isn't advised for many reasons - not least because it raises the black levels. Usually if a monitor has sufficiently high contrast to provide good black levels at a high luminance then it won't require such a high brightness to compensate for a dull and 'lifeless' image. It's starting to sound like a shampoo advert now so I'll stop.

rossiboy001 · 22 Sep 2011 at 14:52

Thanks Iv taken that onboard And gone for a punt with the 21.5 BenQ . the point about recorded differences has merit . I have been reaserching hard and getting to realise that the stated specs on any monitor can be way off the mark , like especially the refresh rate 2ms , 5ms ect .
My logic was centering on the fact that it seems the backlight is the most important part in determining the useful life of the monitor . Of course any number of things can go wrong , but that is pot luck . But studying realise even though LED seems should last longer than LCD tube lighting , Neverless these led"s will also lose brightness over time . Starting with a brand new monitor with the highest available brightness in my theory would give much more scope later on in its life to up the brightness to compensate for overall loss , even though as new might only have set on 50% , but a less bright monitor might well be set much higher like 70% leaving less room for manover later on .
Anyway gone with the benQ with the high number of user endorsements , this seems the best bet in its class for all round performance and being a reputable brand Im hoping as you say the LED quality will compensate for the lower brightness rating. Thanks for your help .