Originally posted by: Exclusive
Thanks!
And also, if to be going with the BenQ, which model would be the best? I really like the looks of the V2400W, although, the G2400WD seems to be replace it? Can you elaborate on that, please? & so, which should I choose? G2400WD/WT/etc!??!?!
Should I also wait for the release of 120Hz monitors? And is it better off also waiting for new releases of 16:9 aspect ratio 24" monitors? Since, 16:9, don't you GAIN picture and despite losing 'pixels'? And you'll get a 'wider' image too? Hmmm ...
If you're this curious you should probably read up on the 120 Hz models already out. But in a short answer, I can basically tell you no, don't bother with 120 Hz now.
Nope you gain nothing going from 1920x1200 16:10 to 1920x1080 16:9 besides true 1080p support. If you multiply that, 16:9 obviously gives you less area. The greatest area for any rectangle is n*n. 16:9 yields less area than 4:3 too.
And therefore, the BenQ has 1:1 support and better default colors and it's $100 cheaper, and the Samsung doesn't have 1:1 support and worser default colors? Does the Samsung have any 'pros' against the BenQ? Or is the BenQ obviously the winner?
Samsung doesn't have advantages unless you like its design better. And I think we already cleared this up about which one you should get. Whichever of the BenQ G2400WD/V2400W that you can find on sale and whose design you like best.
Originally posted by: Renob
xtknight thanks for the reply!!!
I'd go for the LG I guess due to that review of the Samsung regarding response time.
are you talking response time for gaming or response time as in switching form one channel to the next using the remote while watching TV?
I am talking about pixel response time, often discussed about with gaming. Slow pixel response time yields a blurred and ghosted picture.
Originally posted by: fanerman91
How frequent are dead pixels these days? I've sort of made up my mind to get a good monitor for photo-editing (have my eye on the HP LP2475W), but my friend has ranted to me that he hates dead pixels and only buys cheap monitors because he doesn't like going through the hassle of returning a monitor because of dead pixels and he doesn't like the idea of spending several hundred on a monitor that still might have dead pixels.
What do you think about that?
Dead pixels are not as common as they used to be due to better glass cutting techniques.
What do I think about it? Hmmmm well HP I believe lets you exchange endlessly, at least according to one of the above posters' experiences. So just exchange until you get a good one. Or live with the dead pixels. My LCD2690 has two and it doesn't affect me (they are however in off-centered locations, so that's better too).
You can either have a piece of crap with dead pixels or a good monitor with dead pixels, I guess. Your choice, lol.