Hi Basmic, got your email, sorry for delayed reply
I've been reading that I should look for contrast ratios above 500:1, go for a moderate brightness level.
tbh you won't find many screens nowadays with anything lower. The brightness figure basically tells you the maximum luminance of the screen, theoretically the higher the better. Note that the recommended brightness for an LCd in normal lighting conditions is 120 cd/m2 so you'd never really want to have the brightness pumped up to full. however, being able to produce a good brightness is a positive thing, and also helps with contrast.
The contrast ratio figure tells you the difference (as recorded by the manuf at least) between the brightest white and darkest black. So the higher the contrast ratio the better really. If you divide the brightness value by the contrast ratio it will tell you the corresponding black level of the screen. For instance, a screen at 500 cd/m2 brightness with a contrast ratio of 1000:1 would mean black level at that luminance was 0.5 cd/m2. the lower the black depth, the better. some more details on specs
here which might be handy for you.
Now the thing that's going to get me, is the pixel response time.....From what I've read, some manufacturers have different ways of measuring response time - ie: grey-grey, back-to-black, and back-to-white. Is there any way of telling who has used which method to measure these times? Or is it pot luck? I suppose I'm looking for a 4-5ms or better response time - but I am open to suggestions and comments.
Generally if response time is listed in specs as "G2G" then the manufacturer has used Response Time Compensation / Overdrive to boost responsiveness across these transitions. If it's quoted without mentioning G2G then it's a traditional non-overdriven panel more often than not. Rather than me explaining it all, take a look at the details on response time
here as it explains it in much more depth. There is a noticeable improvement in actual responsiveness when overdrive is used, so i would definitely recommend looking for a screen with RTC and G2G quoted response times.
One more thing while I remember - bugs! How easy is it to get these swines out, should they decide my new monitor is a nice home?
I've never personally had a problem with them, but come summer time, there's always a fair few threads in here about them. Prob best to check those
------------------------
Regarding your choice though. I think with a budget of £200, and given your requirements, you're probably going to have to settle for TN Film based screens. Some of what has been said above is a little inaccurate however I would say, statements such as "TN Film has poor black depth and poor colour accuracy" are not really true nowadays. One thing you have to remember about colour accuracy is that buying a specific panel technology will not automatically guarantee good colour accuracy. I see too many people trying to buy IPS based screens claiming they have better colour accuracy than TN Film. However, these people never seem to consider that this is only really the case if the screen is calibrated
professionally using a colorimeter. Out-of-the-box accuracy really can vary a lot, and I've actually found that (very well regarded and popular) IPS based models like the NEC 20WGX2 for instance are actually very poor in terms of colour accuracy at default settings. Take a look at the colour accuracy section in
this review and you'll see what i mean.
What I'm saying is, don't assume that TN Film offers poor colour accuracy, and IPS/VA are so much better. Yes, they offer a wider colour palette (8-Bit colour depth rather than 6-Bit with FRC). Will an average user ever
really notice a difference? Probably not nowadyas. Are IPS/VA capable of excellent colour accuracy? Yes, but only with proper calibration. TN Film panels are also capable of very good colour accuracy nowadays too with calibration. Take the
Acer AL2216W for instance, colour accuracy out of the box is actually better than the IPS based NEC20WGX2! Most users won't have access to hardware colorimeter tools, so i'd try not to get too bogged down with colour accuracy. Check reviews of default colour settings as they are probably more relevant to your situation as a user.
Similar thing with black depth. TN Film panels are actually capable of very good black depth nowdays. Again, the Acer AL2216w is a good example, offering a calibrated black depth of 0.23 cd/m2, very good for a TN Film panel and better than IPS based panels again like the NEC 20WGX2.
Anyway, i'm waffling!
What I'm saying is, too many people dismiss TN Film, when in reality they are perfectly adequate for many many users. Viewing angles (as Fish99 has said) are probably the main weak point of TN Film, being quite restrictive in some models. I've found latest generation of Samsung models (such as the SM205BW - predecessor to the 206BW) were actualyl pretty good, some older TN Film are much worse, especially vertically. If it's just you using the screen from in front, you probably won't find it a problem at all anyway.
The Samsung SM206BW seems a good choice for you I'd say. It's using a 2ms G2G TN Film panel, offering good responsiveness in pratcice. This puts it a step above non-overdriven panels such as the LG L204WT (5ms ISO response time) and Dell E207WFP for instance (5ms again). you can even compare some tests of the SM206BW (2ms overdriven panel) vs the SM205BW (6ms version before it without overdirve)
here and see the comparative difference. You could maybe stretch to the SM226BW at £235 though which is a little bigger and very highly regarded as a gamers screen. The SM206BW is very good though, pretty comparable in a smaller size. Regarding the 19" vs 20", I'd say the WS format of the 20" model is very good to havem, certainly far better for movies and very nice for gaming nowadays. The extra res is also very nice, ideal for office use and good for split screen side by side working. I'd def recomment getting a 20"WS over a 19" model tbh. Anyway, hope all that helps, let me know if any questions
:/
