If you don't have spare wads of cash and aren't hardcore about this, don't listen to Scott. Aspect ratio and pixel density matter more (if you have to choose).
1920x1200 is pretty much the bare minimum these days. The preferable resolution would be something in the Apple Retina or Chromebook Pixel level.
Could you find me a reasonably priced monitor with 230+ DPI that isn't tiny? You say 1200 is the bare minimum, but even the Ultrasharps are mostly 1080p, including the one that's being advertised in their banner.
1920x1200 is pretty much the bare minimum these days. The preferable resolution would be something in the Apple Retina or Chromebook Pixel level.
Could you find me a reasonably priced monitor with 230+ DPI that isn't tiny? You say 1200 is the bare minimum, but even the Ultrasharps are mostly 1080p, including the one that's being advertised in their banner.
Half of the ultrasharps aren't really ultrasharps. The U2410, U2711, and U3011 are the real deal. The other models do not have the complete feature set. Some don't have the same variety of inputs. Some don't have a VESA mount with the quality stand. Some don't have the color accuracy. They've recently added more models, so it's more confusing than ever. The world Ultrasharp alone doesn't mean it's good. Those three models are the good ones.
Really your problem is you want something good, but you can't afford it. As a result, you will have to either save more money or make a sacrifice in quality in some fashion.
That's $750 for a screen with the same quality as the one I linked for $400. I'm willing to go up to $1000 if I can really get a 230DPI with really good colour and view angles, but I still want the best quality/price ratio. That Ultrasharp seems like a worse deal than a LG, IMON or Monoprice. I'm not rich, I simply live in a country where $1000 isn't /that/ much, and I value having a good screen. But throwing money out of the window isn't on my agenda.
That's $750 for a screen with the same quality as the one I linked for $400. I'm willing to go up to $1000 if I can really get a 230DPI with really good colour and view angles, but I still want the best quality/price ratio. That Ultrasharp seems like a worse deal than a LG, IMON or Monoprice. I'm not rich, I simply live in a country where $1000 isn't /that/ much, and I value having a good screen. But throwing money out of the window isn't on my agenda.
It's not the same for three reasons.
1) The Ultrasharp comes pre-calibrated out of the box with accurate colors. I doubt they really took that much effort into calibrating that cheap monoprice screen. You can just start Photoshopping right away.
2) Connections. That Monoprice monitor has one DVI and that's it? The Ultrasharp has..
HDMI 2x DVI DIsplayPort VGA Component Video Composite Video USB hub memory card reader
And to go with all those connections, it also does picture in picture.
You may think you won't use that, but it's insanely useful. The other day I had my GoPro connected to my monitor via HDMI with picture in picture in the top right corner, so I could see what it was recording. DisplayPort cables are also much nicer to use, and can be much longer than the other alternatives. You don't even need a TV if you live in a small enough place. Plug your console right in!
3) The stand. Look at the stand on that monprice. It basically doesn't move. The Dell stand moves every which way, including 90 degree rotation. Sure, they both have VESA mount, so you can buy arms (like I did). But with the Dell you don't really need to.
I doubt the calibrations done by Dell is any good though. I would manually recalibrate a Ultrasharp too. USB Hub and Memory card reader is worth around 10 bucks each I'd say, and picture in picture does not seem appealing to me. Does the firmware required for that slow down the boot up? If so I'd pay money not to have it. As for the stand: I honestly just assumed it could turn 90 degrees, because it costs as much as it does. I have a arm, but it's currently in use and would need to buy another.
So I don't doubt that the Ultrasharp is slightly better. Around 50 bucks worth though, not 350. It should be noted that I never actually considered the Monoprice, I simply linked it because it was the cheapest one with similar specifications from an American reseller. I'm thinking of buying one from Achieva Shimian
Half of the ultrasharps aren't really ultrasharps. The U2410, U2711, and U3011 are the real deal.
Not to tell you how to do your thing, but if that's the case, shouldn't you be a little more specific than your usual grunt of "Ultrasharp" whenever someone mentions monitors, so that you're not leading people astray?
I doubt the calibrations done by Dell is any good though. I would manually recalibrate a Ultrasharp too. USB Hub and Memory card reader is worth around 10 bucks each I'd say, and picture in picture does not seem appealing to me. Does the firmware required for that slow down the boot up? If so I'd pay money not to have it. As for the stand: I honestly just assumed it could turn 90 degrees, because it costs as much as it does. I have a arm, but it's currently in use and would need to buy another.
So I don't doubt that the Ultrasharp is slightly better. Around 50 bucks worth though, not 350. It should be noted that I never actually considered the Monoprice, I simply linked it because it was the cheapest one with similar specifications from an American reseller. I'm thinking of buying one from Achieva Shimian
There is no firmware for the picture in picture. it is in the hardware of the monitor. Your computer isn't involved at all. The monitors turn on and off very quickly. Does how fast a monitor turns on and off really matter at all? I guess if it booted like a computer, it would be a problem, but I've never seen a monitor like that. I just turned my monitor on and off. From the time to pressing the on button to the time of seeing the picture, it was around 5 seconds. Turning it off was instantaneous.
I've been using an HP ZR2740w at work, it's a 27" 16:9 that runs at 2560x1440, and it's amazing to the eye. I'm not sure if it's the best option for that money, but it certainly is awesome to have high-resolutions and ample real-estate.
I like a little extra width for the various side-bar menus and stuff on CAD so 16:9 doesn't bother me in theory, but maybe 16:10 is still better?
Firmware on the actual monitor I meant. It matters a tiny bit. 5 seconds is on the slower end of what's acceptable. If it was 10 seconds I'd be willing to pay $10 to get it to 5 seconds. From 5 seconds to 3, an additional 5 bucks. But it's hardly a huge concern.
Assuming you would never use the picture in picture feature (we have more TVs than we have room), is the Ultrasharp worth $350 more than a ISP panel with the same resolution and reported view angle? Neither Ultrasharp or this hypothetical screen come with stands. You have first hand experience with the Ultrasharp and can attest to it's actual colour and contrast reproduction, but will have to trust manufacturer provided information about the competitor. Please do also provide your reasoning.
Firmware on the actual monitor I meant. It matters a tiny bit. 5 seconds is on the slower end of what's acceptable. If it was 10 seconds I'd be willing to pay $10 to get it to 5 seconds. From 5 seconds to 3, an additional 5 bucks. But it's hardly a huge concern.
Assuming you would never use the picture in picture feature (we have more TVs than we have room), is the Ultrasharp worth $350 more than a ISP panel with the same resolution and reported view angle? Neither Ultrasharp or this hypothetical screen come with stands. You have first hand experience with the Ultrasharp and can attest to it's actual colour and contrast reproduction, but will have to trust manufacturer provided information about the competitor. Please do also provide your reasoning.
I have no idea. Get both monitors and some calibration equipment to really find out. I'm just generally dubious that the cheap panel is actually some sort of secretly amazing deal.
I'm still looking for a good screen. Price is a concern, but let's pretend it isn't. I'm expecting to pay ~$600, but willing to go higher. I want a 2560x1600 display that is 25 inches or smaller. Scott claimed 230 PPI is the only option, but I honestly am unable to find a single option with that kind of resolution. I'm looking, but would be very happy if someone could point me in the right direction.
Until the next generation of broadcasting standards become the norm, these high dpi screens will remain unobtainable. Unless, like Apreche says, are built into a Mac, or some tablet/ phone/ laptop.
600£/$ is about the amount you have to spend for 2560 x 1440 monitors. Seems to be the most common resolution for professional monitors.
I've found plenty of really good looking 2560x1440 monitors for $400 or less in my search for something better. Including the ones that go into the iMacs, with a frame, for about $200. And honestly, I'm fine with paying $600, or even $1000, I just want something better. I have found some very high resolution displays, but those have very bad responses times, bad viewing angles, bad colour reproduction and cost $4000. Is there really not a single 2560x1600 monitor that is 25 inches?
What's a good price/storage ratio hard drive? I bought a 3TB HDD thinking it would last me a while, but I seemed to have filled it up in less than a week. Looking at the price for many/large harddrives on Amazon makes it seem a bit pricey, so I figured I'd make an informed decision and not waste money. Speed is not a big concern, anything reasonable is good enough. I can't shop from US only websites.
What's a good price/storage ratio hard drive? I bought a 3TB HDD thinking it would last me a while, but I seemed to have filled it up in less than a week. Looking at the price for many/large harddrives on Amazon makes it seem a bit pricey, so I figured I'd make an informed decision and not waste money. Speed is not a big concern, anything reasonable is good enough. I can't shop from US only websites.
If you need lots of storage like that, you should get a NAS.
Comments
I've lived with 1080p for some time it won't hurt me to stick with it a little longer till I can afford to blow my eyes off with a 8k HDR screen.
Hopefully I'll find a good deal on a screen when I'm actually going to purchase one, some months from now.
At the moment, I'm just using my 40" LED TV as a PC monitor.
After looking around a bit, this is the best I could find that seemed worth the price:
http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=113&cp_id=11307&cs_id=1130703&p_id=9579&seq=1&format=1#largeimage
It's 90 DPI. If there is some secret society filled with really high res screens where I can get a 200+ DPI 22+ inch, I'd like an invite please.
16:10 LCDs cost waaay more than 16:9, and a real tight resolution costs waaaay more than 1080p.
Really your problem is you want something good, but you can't afford it. As a result, you will have to either save more money or make a sacrifice in quality in some fashion.
1) The Ultrasharp comes pre-calibrated out of the box with accurate colors. I doubt they really took that much effort into calibrating that cheap monoprice screen. You can just start Photoshopping right away.
2) Connections. That Monoprice monitor has one DVI and that's it? The Ultrasharp has..
HDMI
2x DVI
DIsplayPort
VGA
Component Video
Composite Video
USB hub
memory card reader
And to go with all those connections, it also does picture in picture.
You may think you won't use that, but it's insanely useful. The other day I had my GoPro connected to my monitor via HDMI with picture in picture in the top right corner, so I could see what it was recording. DisplayPort cables are also much nicer to use, and can be much longer than the other alternatives. You don't even need a TV if you live in a small enough place. Plug your console right in!
3) The stand. Look at the stand on that monprice. It basically doesn't move. The Dell stand moves every which way, including 90 degree rotation. Sure, they both have VESA mount, so you can buy arms (like I did). But with the Dell you don't really need to.
So I don't doubt that the Ultrasharp is slightly better. Around 50 bucks worth though, not 350. It should be noted that I never actually considered the Monoprice, I simply linked it because it was the cheapest one with similar specifications from an American reseller. I'm thinking of buying one from Achieva Shimian
I like a little extra width for the various side-bar menus and stuff on CAD so 16:9 doesn't bother me in theory, but maybe 16:10 is still better?
Assuming you would never use the picture in picture feature (we have more TVs than we have room), is the Ultrasharp worth $350 more than a ISP panel with the same resolution and reported view angle? Neither Ultrasharp or this hypothetical screen come with stands. You have first hand experience with the Ultrasharp and can attest to it's actual colour and contrast reproduction, but will have to trust manufacturer provided information about the competitor. Please do also provide your reasoning.
Until the next generation of broadcasting standards become the norm, these high dpi screens will remain unobtainable. Unless, like Apreche says, are built into a Mac, or some tablet/ phone/ laptop.
600£/$ is about the amount you have to spend for 2560 x 1440 monitors. Seems to be the most common resolution for professional monitors.