21" or 24" LCD?

As my old Dell 2001 broke, I want to buy a new LCD. Here is my question: money is an issue

Do I get better results from 24" LCD with 1920x1200 pixels
than with a 21" LCD with 1600x1200 pixels in terms of ergonomics or usability?

I know this quesion might sound stupid, but what is your experiance when using such displays?

--
Zetto

Billy Jean is not my lover

--



MTC - An American Guy in Korea - MTC

Michael,

how is the Dell 2405? Would you recomend it, since you own two of them? How is the video capability?

--
Zetto

Billy Jean is not my lover

The Dell 2405 is an outstanding monitor that pays compliment to the Canon camera line-up and affords the photographer an outstanding dimension when working through the post processing venue or simply viewing captured pictures.The colors on this monitor are sharp,accurate and reflect your shooting talents.

I just love my Dell 2105FPW!

If your on a budget you are better off going with two smaller monitors than one big one (unless you're a gamer too). Use one monitor for all your pallettes and the other monitor for a work space. In some cases you can pick up a pair of 19" monitors for the price of one 24". Most modern video cards support dual monitors. I run dual 21" and have more usuable deskspace than with a 30" monitor.
--
Fred
http://www.butterflymultimedia.com/fred

I have just got a Samsung 214T which is a 1600x1200 21 inch.

You can never have enough real estate on the screen. so if I could have afforded a 1900x1200 I would have got it.

I have also got a cheapie small lcd for a second display. Works great.

--
Steve Horn
Gallery http://www.pbase.com/stevehorn/selected

I have two Dell 2405FP and they just can't be beat. Just google the reviews and you will see just how good they are. They even beat the Apple 23" in most areas.

Call Dell Small Business and ask for the best price. They had a special 2 weeks ago for $600.00. I'm sure you can get one for around $900 even now.

using one of the new Sony XBR LCD HDTVs that are 1366 X 768... if not does anyone have any thoughts on how one would work? I have had several people tell me they look great on their pc for regular work/gaming but non of them do any work with images.

I would buy the biggest highest resolution monitor you can find if you work with images or programs with lots of pallets.

I bought a 30" with 2560x1600 a year ago and would love to have one even larger. You really get used to the size.....and I thougt 30" would be too big.

Ive used 2 monitors in the past but nothing compares to having everything on one screen. Looks cleaner, too.
There's nothing like filling a 30" monitor with an image.

my .02

Rick

If you wait a few weeks, Dell will come out with new LCDs. The dell 3007 will be out this week. It is a 30" monster that rivals Apple's 30 incher. There will also be a 2407 which will introduced later. I think the monitors ending with -7 will have HDMI compliance on the video signal; this is only important if you plan to feed the monitors DVD signals from sources that enforce HDMI. For example, the upcoming Windows Vista will only enforce HDMI. Personally, I feel that HDMI can kiss my ass.

Size does matter, but....

since you want a monitor for pictures, you need to look at image quality. Generic reviews usually focus on gamer and business markets; for games speed of display is much more important than color stability; for business it is brightness and contrast to provide vivid image in bright office cubes.

For each monitor you consider, go to robgalbraith.com, look at color management forum, and spend few hours searching through it. Keep in mind that default search time window is very limited, you need to expand it.

Dell 24" has lot of troubles with color stability across whole display; if you really want quality, you are looking at LaCie, Eizo or provessional units from Vievsonic. Do not confuse consumer products with monitors specifically designed for graphic works - they will give much more adjustability and stability.

Be prepared to spend a pretty penny for an LCD which is somparable to CRT in quality; you will want to use a calibration unit to have stable reference point.

Very good site with technical information on LCD:

http://www.prad.de/guide/hersteller_start.html

Kleks
--
point'n'click view of the world:
http://kleks.gotdns.org:8000/fotos/

ricklacey said:

I would buy the biggest highest resolution monitor you can find if
you work with images or programs with lots of pallets.
I bought a 30" with 2560x1600 a year ago and would love to have one
even larger. You really get used to the size.....and I thougt 30"
would be too big.
Ive used 2 monitors in the past but nothing compares to having
everything on one screen. Looks cleaner, too.
There's nothing like filling a 30" monitor with an image.

my .02

Click to expand...

Hi, how is it for non-image apps, like browsing? IOW, how's text?

I really have a hard time reaching most monitors' native 1600x1200, before there is too much eye strain. 30" would surely help, but thats alot of res...
thx, and best, mark

For photo editing I'd go for the 1920 only if you're big into landscapes. Otherwise I'd get a 21" pivot for portrait shots. Most of the time you lose a lot of pixels on the top and bottom of the screen and not many on the sides, so starting with 1600 sure beats 1200 for all portrait shots.

Also, and this speaks to your question of whether you'll get better results from a wide screen monitor, it many instances the pixel height limits the pixel width. For example, if you lose 200 pixels from the top and bottom due to Title Bar, Menu Bar, Toolbar, Status Bar, and Start Bar, you're only going to be able to use use 800 pixels of the width when editing an 8X10 image and only 1000 when editing for a 10X8 image. In these common situations you're not even going to be using 1600 pixels, much less 1920 pixels, so a wider monitor is not going to give you better results.

Quality is a separate issue from size of course.

Zetto said:

As my old Dell 2001 broke, I want to buy a new LCD. Here is my
question: money is an issue

Do I get better results from 24" LCD with 1920x1200 pixels
than with a 21" LCD with 1600x1200 pixels in terms of ergonomics or
usability?

I know this quesion might sound stupid, but what is your experiance
when using such displays?

--
Zetto

Billy Jean is not my lover

Click to expand...

Zetto said:

As my old Dell 2001 broke, I want to buy a new LCD. Here is my
question: money is an issue

Do I get better results from 24" LCD with 1920x1200 pixels
than with a 21" LCD with 1600x1200 pixels in terms of ergonomics or
usability?

I know this quesion might sound stupid, but what is your experiance
when using such displays?

Click to expand...

I've spent a lot of time studying this lately .... I've been in the market for either a single LCD, or a pair ... because I'm particularly interested in portrait mode as well as horiz.

I'm interested in maximizing the image size of a full 3:2 picture. I want picts to be as big as they can be, correctly sized. So I've tried to figure out how a 3:2 image actually fits inside the various PC format monitors floating around. 21" are 4:3, usually 1600x1200. Widescreens are 16:10, and a 24" nrmally comes in at 1920 x 1200. Actual physical viewing sizes follow pixel counts extremely closely as there is little difference in the size of individual pixels between these monitors.

Now, at first blush it looks like the wide screen is the only monitor capable of providing enough horiz size to allow full use of the 1200 vertical ... that is 1200 x 3:2 = 1800, which is less than 1920. BUT, can we use the full 1200 vertical? Well, CS2 and every program I've tried have title bars, or non-moveable tool bars that rob vertical real estate. I figure 85% of vertical is all that's normally usable. So 85% of 1200 = 1020. And 1020 x 3:2 = 1510, which also fits inside a 21" 1600.

Bottom line, a 24" wide screen gives no larger a full image than does a 21" regular screen. What you get is tool bar space on the sides. But I would much rather have a second monitor for that ... but then again, that is an entirely personal preference.

It's a little ironic that horiz 3:2 pics are most constrained by vertical real estate, as monitors keep expanding horizontally! And if you rotate a monitor and play around in portrait mode you find the same thing ... that the pics are vertically constrained first. Here, widescreens have great value in producing the largest image .... because they're taller! Go figure! best, mark

I know what you mean about 1600x1200. If you are on a 17" or 20" 1600x1200 is VERY difficult to read. I could never use it.
On the 30", 2560x1600 is great for browsers and anything I have used it for.

ricklacey said:

I know what you mean about 1600x1200. If you are on a 17" or 20"
1600x1200 is VERY difficult to read. I could never use it.
On the 30", 2560x1600 is great for browsers and anything I have
used it for.

Click to expand...

That's encouraging .... thx, mark

I've got an idea. 2 30" monitors. One on an aticulating arm so you can rotate it for portraits and the other for your landscapes and pallets....and for about 5500 or so, you could do that

I use an arm with the 30" apple and one of my favorite things to do with it is pull it toward me

at my desk, bring it down to desk level and tilt it back a bit. Just as you would if you were propping a book up on your desk to read. Zero strain and very comfortable.

my .02, anyway

Rick

Assuming photo editing is a primary use for you, a quality CRT is a must.

--
Lazy winter days are here again. Wont the sun come out and play?

Hmm, I put my Viewsonic 21" CRT next to my Dell 24" and the Viewsonic color and clarity is no match for the Flat Panel.