looking for a good monitor

[Ash93]

Looking for a good monitor that has the same vibrant clarity as http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16824176079

Used that for a very long time and the monitors I have tried out so far do not even come close to the color vibrancy and clarity of this monitor. This monitor has a reflective coating while other monitors I have tried have the cinema screen coating. I heard now there are some new monitors that have a much better image than ones with the reflective coating. Does anyone know any suitable replacements for this monitor? I do still prefer the 16:10 ratio but I doubt there are any around.

Basically the one I have you can see yourself in the screen when the monitor is off. But for some reason the picture quality is really high compared to others.

[Nellah]

I have been a big fan of the older Dell Ultrasharp monitors. I own a 2407WFP, a U2410, and a 3007WFP. The 3007WFP, if you can find a good quality used one, is a positively phenomenal monitor. Yes, you are limited to 60Hz and ONLY have a Dual-Link DVI port to work with, but the input lag is very low (due to lack of scalar needed for pure DVI input.) One concern is, of course, that it might be TOO big, and in dark rooms their sheer brightness will give you eyestrain (I run each monitor at about 25% brightness, and that's in a LIT room...)

If you want higher refresh rates or more modern inputs, of course, these are horrible choices, but I only speak from my own experience.

[Artorius]

Looking for a good monitor that has the same vibrant clarity as http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16824176079

I don't know what exactly you're trying to say with "vibrant clarity", but judging from the link it's related to the fact that the monitor is a 300cd/m² TFT monitor. Which is brighter than most of the generic LED monitors that we see nowadays.

Don't really know what to recommend, are you comfortable with a 1000:1 contrast? Do you have any size/resolution/refresh rate preference?

[Remilia]

Dell S2415H is a decent glossy LG IPS.
It's not 16:10 however.

A bit as Artorius mentioned, vibrant clarity is very not clear.
A glossy panel wouldn't provide any graininess like a anti-glare coating, no matter how light it is, there is still some graininess. Glossy would provide a better image quality but they are far and few due to the downsides of them, as in 'can't see shit capn'.

[Ash93]

I don't know what exactly you're trying to say with "vibrant clarity", but judging from the link it's related to the fact that the monitor is a 300cd/m² TFT monitor. Which is brighter than most of the generic LED monitors that we see nowadays.

Don't really know what to recommend, are you comfortable with a 1000:1 contrast? Do you have any size/resolution/refresh rate preference?

If you ever walked through a store that had monitors on display the ones that were really bright and clear and had a reflection. Also can you explain the 300cd/m TFT?

[Remilia]

If you ever walked through a store that had monitors on display the ones that were really bright and clear and had a reflection. Also can you explain the 300cd/m TFT?

Yeah you're talking about glossy. S2415H mentioned would fit what you want. Really is the only recent decent glossy monitor I can think off the top of my head...
http://pcpartpicker.com/part/dell-monitor-s2415h

300cd/m2 is the specced brightness level. TFT is Thin Film Transistor, the type of transistor used to make LCD panels.

[Artorius]

If you ever walked through a store that had monitors on display the ones that were really bright and clear and had a reflection. Also can you explain the 300cd/m TFT?

What Remilia said and:

Most of the current monitors deliver 250cd/m² light output, while yours is brighter at 300.
That's probably why you perceive it as "really bright and clear".

[Ash93]

This is a dumb question but do you think the monitors at 1440p would have better picture quality than the glossy monitors? I would like to keep it at or under 24 inches.

[Artorius]

This is a dumb question but do you think the monitors at 1440p would have better picture quality than the glossy monitors? I would like to keep it at or under 24 inches.

Resolution has nothing to do with picture "quality".
For the same display size it increases the pixel density, which gives you more information per area. Potentially making things sharper and less pixelated if you choose Windows to scale it up. If you don't, you get more screen real state and things will just be smaller at the screen.

For picture quality you should look into contrast, color reproduction fidelity and screen uniformity mostly.

[Remilia]

This is a dumb question but do you think the monitors at 1440p would have better picture quality than the glossy monitors? I would like to keep it at or under 24 inches.

More pixels really depend. For the most part it means you have more real estate to work with.
A 2560x1440 at 25" or 27" will have more pixel density which can smooth out edges and more information per inch, essentially, which can help out.
Depending on how close you sit to the screen, there's also less likely hood of being able to see individual pixels which can help with image, but that's entirely subjective to people's use.

Now as for comparison in image quality of a glossy vs anti-glare. If the two panels perform exactly the same in color accuracy, coverage, contrast, etc, then the glossy one will have better image quality due to the nature of not having an AG coating. AG coating always adds a sort of graininess to the panel because of the nature of it. The lighter the coating the less grainy but also less effective. A compromise is what's called a semi-glossy coating which is just an extremely light coating but retains some amount of AG property.
A glossy, glass or no coating means no graininess caused by the coating and a better image.

- - - Updated - - -

A read for people that care.
http://www.eizoglobal.com/library/ba..._4k/index.html

[Artorius]

Resolution actually has a lot to do with picture quality. The higher the pixel density the more clarity potential.

Depends on what you define by picture quality, and that's written in the post =p