22" 24" Picture?

[Bingy]

Hi, I have a LG W2252TQ 22" monitor. And got it because it was good for gaming looks like one of the best (the case/finish) and it was quite cheap.

$325 NZ dollars
$550-650 for a 24" in NZ

My question is do things like games and what ever look better on a 22" or a 24" in relation to picture and sharpness (the actual look from the pixels.
)

The reason why I also stuck with a 22" was because it would run fine of a 512mb graphics card and with a 24" I would have to spend another $100 here in NZ to get a 1GB version. (therefor the 24" is costing me more in graphics cards.)

So does the picture look better on a 22" 1650x1050 or a 24" 1920x 1200

I would think that the resolution would need to be higher on a 24" to support for the bigger screen size (the extra 2") But is it more then this bigger screen size, if you know what i mean. Does it look more sharper then the 22"?

Thanks.

 

[ohiou_grad_06]

Typically the higher the resolution the better. However, higher resolutions mean stiffer requirements. It's not just about the memory on the video card, but it also matters what kind of card you get.

 

[Zenthar]

Typically the higher the resolution the better. However, higher resolutions mean stiffer requirements. It's not just about the memory on the video card, but it also matters what kind of card you get.

+1, the 512MB is probably enough even at 1920x1200, however the extra definition will require a better GPU, so the 100$ might be more like 200$ ...

 

[Bingy]

Would u mean the graphics card would like to need have for example 1500 processes over say 1000. or like DDR5 instead of DDR3 (just an example, increaseing the cost.) And even though graphic cards are getting better each year then it would be no problem to run 1920x1200 fine but games are getting more demanding so you are back to sqaure one.

Ok so Typically the higher the resolution the better. But how much pixels are left over to fill in the gap of the extra 2"? I would assume that the higher resolution would make an area more dense with pixels?

Is this correct. 1920x1200 - 1650x1050 = 2304000 - 1732500 = 571500 so a 24" over a 22" has 571500 more pixels. My question is how much actuall pixels is required to fill in the extra 2" on the 24" and how many pixels are then put back into the whole screen. If you know what i mean.

1lus is it recommended to play on a 24" over a 22" as it will start to stretch a persons viewing, therefore they will need to turn there neck every time looking from left to right?

 

[Zenthar]

Unless you play really close to your LCD (<1.5 ft.), you won't need to turn your head.

As for pixel count, you are absolutely right on your calculation, but the size has nothing to do with it. No matter the size of the screen 1920x1200 will always have 571500 more pixels than 1650x1050; pixels are pixels. The difference is that for the same resolution, a larger screen will have bigger pixels. BTW, that is partially why you have suggested minimum viewing distance on large LCD TVs (1080p is "only" 1920x1080 if you want to know). If you ever watched standard TV on a huge projection TV, you know how ugly it looks.

For myself, I'm very happy with a 22" monitor. A 24" monitor would be nicer, but less so on my budget. Here is an example to illustrate my point: an ATI 4870 (150-200$) can achieve about 45 frames per seconds (FPS) @ 1680x1050, but if you want the same 45 FPS @ 1920x1200, you need something like a GTX285 (300-350$).

 

[kbits]

What you refering to is called Dot pitch. The smaller the better.

Look here for a table:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot_pitch

 

[Bingy]

Yea Zenthat thats why I got a 22" cause it was $150-200 cheaper. And plus Id be saving my self alot of money on less powerful graphic cards to get the same fps. I was suppose to build a bang for buck PC so I guess a 24" isnt bang for buck.

Can you actually notice a real difference between a 22" vs 24" 1650x1050 vs 1920x1200

 

[Bingy]

What you refering to is called Dot pitch. The smaller the better.

Look here for a table:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot_pitch

Looking there theres only 4 more pixels per inch from a 24" 1920x1200 to a 22" 1650x1050. How ever how many inches is there in a 24" + also how many inch is there in a 22"?

Thanks

 

[Bingy]

can some one answer this. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot_pitch Would a 17" 1440×900 monitor have a better picture then a 24" 1920x1200?

Therefore to get a better picture you should try get a higher resolution on the smallest screen size possible?


And last of all is there a noticeable difference from a 22" 1650x1050 vs a 24" 1920x1200. Cause looking at that chart there only seems to be a small advantage to the 24"

 

[espslyxerx2]

Lol, quit being a fool. If your considering buying a new screen by atleast a 24". Why? For one their cheap, you can find 24" all day for $220 maybe less.

Two, the real estate. I had a 22" at home, I needed more screen space so I bought another 22". Even after that I decided hell, wtf am I doing, so I sold my 22"s and I bought a 28". That's a real screen and im glad I upgraded. No regrets.

Your not going to notice the difference between the two resolutions on two different sized screens. Im assuming your not a graphic artist etc, so color accuracy isnt that important (otherwise you would be looking at spending thousands on a screen).

All I do is school work and game. The resolution on my 28" is 1920x1200 and I cant tell the difference of the picture quality then having 1650x1050 on a 22".

Buy a 24" and be happy with the purchase. A 22" is not that big of a screen to begin with.


One more thing, never over pay for a screen for a "name brand". Please note, last time I checked there is only 3 - 4 companies in the world that make these type of screens, so if the specs are the same, they are the exact same screen, different plastic around the lcd is the only thing that changes.

Good luck, hope you make the right decision.


N/m I should have read your original post. You already have a 22", your probably not going to notice a difference.

 

[Alien_959]

Screen with higher dot pitch is better, but that also depends of distance from you viewing the screen. If you watch the screen from 1,5 meters you wouldn't notice the pixels.

I will go with the 24" but for proper gaming you should have at least ati 4870, or gtx 285 models or some SLI/ Crossfire setup with mid range cards.

Also I will likely to spend more on the screen because usually outlives the other hardware, and the video card is easier to upgrade. Go with quality 24" That my opinion.

 

[Bingy]

here in nz its $225- $250 to go from a 22" to a 24" so i reckon its not worth it. I mean you are also going to get less fps. and having to pay more on the graphics card to get reasonable fps.

Alien_959 a higher pixel pitch is better over a lower pixel pitch? cause then a 22" will have a better pitcure?

 

[Bingy]

bump

 

[kbits]

No it is the opposite. A 22" needs to fill a bit more space with the same amount of pixel than a 20" (assuming both are 1680X1050). Smaller dotPitch value gives better definition for a given surface, a bit like DPI in print (for DPI though, higher value gives better definition).

Now, there is a lot more than dotPitch to evaluate "better picture". Viewing distance, contrast, responsiveness, color gamut, type of panel and we can go on and on. Don't look at dotPitch value as the biggest factor for image quality. It is not.

A 17" LCD at 1920X1080 does look quite stunning, but a lot of things in computer appear in native resolution, so the 10 pixels tall icon will look quite small on the screen, too small for some people.

I don't think you'll be disapointed by a 20" or 22" anyway, at least not based on dotPitch. If you like to sit back and enjoy a movie on your computer, a 22" gives you a little extra (not in resolution, but in size). Some people also prefer that things appear a bit bigger, and some don't. At this point it is pretty subjective.

Go to a computer store and compare both, you'll see which one seem more natural to you. Then focus on all others factors that really matter for image quality.

 

[Jack64]

I have a 2493HM samsung monitor with a GTX 295 running at 1920X1200 and it is about 3 1/2 ft from me, and looks amazing. I play COD4 and COD5 and soon Crysis but everything I have played and done with rendering Pics and watching Bluray dvd's have looked simply STUNNING!!! I wouldn't trade my setup for anything less!! No stuuter in games and smooth as silk video, I love this setup!! and I am close to the monitor!! And +1 to KBits, go and compair that is the best way to decide!!

 

[Jack64]

After re-reading your initiall post......I would say the 22" monitor and a 1 gig card would be the best for you!! I did overkill on mine and noone should have to do that. I spent 500 on the video card and 400 on the monitor, so you are right a 22 is perfect for your setup!!

 

[Bingy]

My Lg W2252TQ has a refresh rate of 60hz is this a problem. As I hear alot can do 75 hz and even 80's. What exactly does the refresh rate do and is my 60 hz perfectly fine? I read something about imput and output refresh rate if any one knows about this?

I got this 22" cause it was the most recommend monitor here in New Zealand. And very cheap compared to others. And all the samsung ones now use chei something pannels instead of straight samsung panels.

 

[Bingy]

Plz answer this to wat does it mean by Pixels per inch? cause how could ther be 94 pixels per inch squared? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot_pitch when theres like at least a million pixels.

Is it like a 24" has 94x94 pixels per inch squared = 8836 and a 22" has 90x90 pixels per inch squared = 8100. Difference = 736.

Though I draw a inch squared box on paint 2.56x2.56 dimensions and i found it hard to believe that theres even 2000 pixels in there.

OR I thought the difference between the 24" and the 22" 94 and 90 which is a differnce of 4. So theres 16 more pixels in each inch squared?

Please help me with.

Thank you.

If some one could calculate the exact number more pixels a 24" has over a 22" in relation to the density of pixels per inch sqaured. Ive tried so many ways, i dont know what way is right.

So to sumerise how much more pixels in each inch square does a 24" have vs a 22"
Its hard to explain cause of the extra 2" the 24 has but like with the number of pixels to fill in the space of the 2" extra how many left pixels would be put evenly back and distrubuited into the screen, if you know what I mean.

 

[Zenthar]

Basic trigonometry here (it had to be useful for something )
22" @ 1680x1050 (16:10 aspect ratio)
■1680x1050 = 1 764 000px
■22" diagonal = ~217.53 sq. in. screen
■1764000px/217.53 sq. in = ~8109 px/sq. in
24" @ 1920x1200 (16:10 aspect ratio)
■1920x1200 = 2 304 000px
■24" diagonal = ~258.88 sq. in. screen
■2304000px/258.88 sq. in = ~8900 px/sq. in

 

[Alien_959]

here in nz its $225- $250 to go from a 22" to a 24" so i reckon its not worth it. I mean you are also going to get less fps. and having to pay more on the graphics card to get reasonable fps.

Alien_959 a higher pixel pitch is better over a lower pixel pitch? cause then a 22" will have a better pitcure?

Dot pitch is one of many parametars for quality picture. The reason for recommending 24" is in time people always want a bigger monitor, but you can go another way- buy 22" but make sure is a pva/mva lcd matrix it has a deeper black representation, and usually the contrast and color a much better. I have a PVA matrix screen it's older monitor but it shows compared to TN screens. I always go for a higher quality monitor. I think there is a nice buy from Viewsonic a 22" i didn't remember the model number but is PVA screen and good one too( I will see if i can find the exact model) the price was 380 euro where i live.

 

[Alien_959]

Also I forgot, the best way to see what suits you is to see 22, 24" monitors in person, some friend, store.... In that way you can be sure what's good for you.

 

[Bingy]

Basic trigonometry here (it had to be useful for something )
22" @ 1680x1050 (16:10 aspect ratio)
■1680x1050 = 1 764 000px
■22" diagonal = ~217.53 sq. in. screen
■1764000px/217.53 sq. in = ~8109 px/sq. in
24" @ 1920x1200 (16:10 aspect ratio)
■1920x1200 = 2 304 000px
■24" diagonal = ~258.88 sq. in. screen
■2304000px/258.88 sq. in = ~8900 px/sq. in

Thanks very much.

So can it be said that for each sqaured inch a 22" has, a 24" will have 791 more pixels per inch sqaured. That seems alot, if u imagine it for each inch squared another 791 then another 791 pixels.

So would a 24" be total off 172066.23 pixels more clearer? 172 thousand. out of 1.7 million?

If this is true you would need to add 172 thousand pixels to a 22" at 1650x1050 to see the same sharpness picture as off a 24" 1920x1200. Correct???

How ever in the real world would you really see a NOTICEABLE difference if you had a 22" and a 24" in their native resolution side by side.

I also have a question about that 8aa stuff in games. (along the lines. cant remember fully.) By turning it up to the max could it be possible to get a 22" to look like the sharpness of a 24"?

Thanks for all the help.

 

[Zenthar]

If this is true you would need to add 172 thousand pixels to a 22" at 1650x1050 to see the same sharpness picture as off a 24" 1920x1200.

Technically yes, by adding 172K pixels you would get the same pixel density, but it wouldn't be a 16580x1050 resolution anymore .

It seems a lot, but I think the human eye resolution is something equivalent to above 23 million pixels so ...

As for Anti-Aliasing (AA), the thing that reduces the look of what are called "jaggies", yes they help the overall look. But will it look like the sharpness of a 24", I don't know.

Is the difference NOTICEABLE between 22" and 24", I think the difference is mostly in the amount on SPACE to display information than in actual sharpness (unless you are into computer imaging and stuff).

 

[Bingy]

Thanks for all the help Zenthar.