I know there's Display Port and something called IPS, HD connectors, resolution, ms, contrast etc, but when I read reviews about screens people bitch about the most unprecise elements like "picture crispness" and "color quality" and "overall image quality".
What the hell is that supposed to mean? Is the screen good or not? Does blue display as red and green display as pink or something?
I don't care about how hard it is to navigate the color menu as long as it works, it's not as if I set my colors each day.
Anyone have any good recomendation for a 23-24'' screen with HD port or Display Port and 2-5ms which you enjoy using?
I do my homework but frankly reading reviews about monitors is as annoying as reading reviews about smartphones, people give them 4.5/5 cause the shape is too round or the color of the casing is too reflective or some nonsense.
I have 3 ViewSonics in my house, the oldest being 6 years, and have never had problems with them. 2 are on VGA, one is using DVI port and everything looks generally clear and as it should. Is ViewSonic still good?
Last edited by ragnarokvr1; 2012-12-10 at 09:43 PM.
Works like a charm. Has both DVI and HDMI. Only problem I had was a (one) pixel refused to give light (a.k.a. dead pixel or black pixel), but since 24" is so huge, it isn't really bothering me at all. Larger screens always have a higher probability of getting faulty pixels in them because of common sense.. More pixels, more chance of fault.
It all depends what you're wanting to do with your monitor and how much you want to spend on your setup. If budget isn't limited and you play a lot of FPS, then you want to go with a 120hz monitor and an SLI setup. If you're doing more professional artist work, then you'd want an IPS screen for the more brilliant color accuracy. Then you get into higher resolutions. 1080p is still considered "king" because that's what the majority of people are using, but there's also 1440p and 1600p which would require a significant increase in power.