BIG ass monitor

cool i am currently looking for one to connect to my laptop for the lil home "studio" im preparing.

Just never heard the term "refresh rate" :o someone nice enough to explain to me what that means? Logically does it mean that if its too long then the screen will freeze until it can be back on track with the movement on the laptop?

And one important thing where is it usually written or mentionned cause im pretty sure the salesmen wont have a clue..

Thanks

(pipaguapique sorry for hijacking :o)
 
rispsira said:
cool i am currently looking for one to connect to my laptop for the lil home "studio" im preparing.

Just never heard the term "refresh rate" :o someone nice enough to explain to me what that means? Logically does it mean that if its too long then the screen will freeze until it can be back on track with the movement on the laptop?

And one important thing where is it usually written or mentionned cause im pretty sure the salesmen wont have a clue..

Thanks

(pipaguapique sorry for hijacking :o)
Click to expand...


Refresh rate refers to how quickly you monitor or TV draws the screen from top to bottom. The shorter the refresh rate the less you get the "motion blur" effect.

Best way to explain it is for you to see it yourself. Go to a local TV shop and watch the video on the monitors, when there is fast action happening on the screen notice some TVs get more "blurry" or "murky" looking then others, they have refresh rates that are not as fast as others :)

Honestly you cant really visually notice the difference till it becomes more then 5ms or so between the 2 different TV / Monitors
 
1. The OP wanted a big ass monitor.
2. He mentioned a "good deal" 400 USD, so it looks like he is not a "rockefeller".
3. There is no such thing as a cheap big ass CRT and plasmas are pricier than LCDs, so this thread must be only about a big ass LCDs.
4. All (ALL) LCDs and Plasmas are progressive scan.
5. Someone said "Pixels has nothing to do with fitting stuff on the screen the size of the screen has to do with how much you can fit on it.", but backed away from it saying he used wrong wording.
6. Some lunatic who may know something about the stuff we are talking about, but certainly doesn't know what this thread is about, started talking about interlacing.
7. I laughed.

I am 32 now and i got my first computer when i was 10 and then i learned what the interlacing is.
 
Dalinkwent48@aim.com said:
Pixels has nothing to do with fitting stuff on the screen the size of the screen has to do with how much you can fit on it.
Click to expand...

guitarguru777 said:
1080p isnt going to give you more pixels then a 720p, resolution is resolution dude. Thats a myth. PC's cant get high enough resolutions to support 1080p yet.
Click to expand...

wrong and wrong.

Pixels refer to the actual physical space on a monitor or (the 3 color grid), and are the same size on all computer monitors, HDTV's maintain the same resolution and make the TVs bigger not by adding more pixels, but by making the pixels bigger. More pixels = higher resolution, and higher resolution = more work space.

If you are not playing movies a 1080 will give you a larger working area. If for example you compared a 1080 and a 720 HDTV connected to a computer and the settings were put up to their maximum resolution, you will find that the icons, windows and text will be more "blown up" on the 720. To put it simply every 1080p HDTV will give you the same workable area to fit stuff as a 22 in computer monitor does. If you are really looking for more area to work with and not just a bigger picture, a 28 in. or 30 in. monitor will give you almost twice the resolution and essentially almost twice the work space.

When it comes to movies, no matter the native resolution on the monitor they are limited to 1080, which means to compensate for the extra resolution that the monitor has, the picture will be expanded to fit the screen. This means in terms of watching movies, you have the resolution of 1080 regardless of the size of the screen, just with HDTV's. However even given the sizes a computer monitor at 1080 will not expand the picture nearly as much as it would with a 42 in TV, which is why if you ever noticed that the same image on two different sized TV's, the larger one look more blurry, this is because the image is being expanded due to a lack of pixels, its the same as zooming in on a digital photo.

put it this way, when you use a TV as a monitor you will notice that the size of the icons, text and windows will be large compared to the area of the screen, like the high contrast setting for the sight impaired, you don't get more work space, you just are making the image larger. So it comes down to if you want larger work space, get a larger computer monitor, if you just want a larger image, get a 1080 TV.
 
guitarguru777 said:
HAHA .. thats awesome!

1080p isnt going to give you more pixels then a 720p, resolution is resolution dude. Thats a myth. PC's cant get high enough resolutions to support 1080p yet.

Max resolution on the highest cards currently equates to about 940p which is pointless as nothing supports it technically ....lol

Just worry about the refresh rate and how it LOOKS on screen and you will be fine.
Click to expand...

Quoting in case you want to drag it on some more and/or delete it .
Then i will put some of it in my sig for all to laugh about :)

Especially that "PC's cant get high enough resolutions to support 1080p yet."
No rotflmao emote on this forum ? :bah: ;)
 
I had been using a 46" 1080hd LCD as my primary monitor up until a while ago and it looked fine. I do have an epic graphics card however.
 
What are you looking for exactly, more work space? If I were you I'd get a dual monitor solution instead, I'm using that kind of setup in both the studios and nowadays I really couldn't do without it. But it's of course a matter of preference.

EDIT: Dual 23" btw, forgot to mention. Don't know if I'd be comfortable with bigger.
 
Well there are two sides to the story here.

Resolution... which in layman terms means how much shit can you fit on the screen.

Size... how big the screen is.

If you have a big ass screen, but shitty resolution... then you just have ginourmous windows icons, etc. but you can't fit as much on the screen.

If you have good resolution, you can fit more on. So even a 19" can provide a lot more workspace, with smaller icons and windows.

Case and point, I have a 3-year old 20" monitor that can 1600x1200. But I also have a 22" LCD than can only do 1280x1080. F'n LCD sucks... looks great, but I actually have less workspace. So everything is bigger, but I can fit shit on it.

TV, even high-def resolution sucks. Then for computers still only 1080 tall most of the time.

I mean really to justify the size, I would prefer 1920x1600 or 2250x1600 (guesstimating the ranges), that would be sweet at 32", but you are getting into the 4-digit price range.

Recently I picked this up:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824254052&cm_re=hanns_G-_-24-254-052-_-Product

Looks great, 28", cheap as hell. And at least it does 1920x1200, so you get a bit more actual workable space than the 1920x1080's.

As far as refresh speed, i wouldn't worry, for Pro-Tools, aint gonna matter. Can be slow as hell and you wouldn't even notice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Dexter_prog
New computer monitor, wide or not wide: that is the question
Replies
15
Views
652
Backline
AeternusEternus
A
462studio
Opinions Wanted: 22" LCD vs. 20" LCD
Replies
10
Views
838
Backline
Loren Littlejohn
L
Wolfeman
Monitor woes. (Screens, not speakers)
Replies
14
Views
694
Backline
abt
A
Zombietakeover
LCD PC Monitor Acting weird???
Replies
3
Views
515
Backline
mick thompson
M
The StabbinCabin
New stack or new monitors?
Replies
3
Views
458
Backline
The StabbinCabin
T
Top Bottom