Monitor VS Monitor!

[ispano]

Dude (duuude, duuuuuuuude), 15'' laptops have that resolution nowadays!

Oh I know this, too bad they don't use the very dense dpi panels on desktops.

[Wries]

Firstly I don't understand the big deal about a monitor without speakers not having hdmi unless you watch blu rays on it.

AFAIK DVI supports HDCP too. My Nvidia Control panel reports my Samsung Syncmaster connected through DVI is HDCP'd. Not that I have a blu-ray (disk nor player) to test.

[dicertification]

AFAIK DVI supports HDCP too. My Nvidia Control panel reports my Samsung Syncmaster connected through DVI is HDCP'd. Not that I have a blu-ray (disk nor player) to test.

Yea dawned on me after posting that. Thanks for the clarification. Again, I don't understand the big deal of a monitor not having hdmi if it doesn't have speakers.

[ispano]

It's for the people who want to plug their trash cans into it. Oh right, Trashcan = PS3

[Asera]

It's for the people who want to plug their trash cans into it. Oh right, Trashcan = PS3

I'm mostly fond of the displayport on it moreso than the HDMI port.

However, the HDMI in would be handy when I get a cable box next fall. And the bigger screen will help for watching movies on my bed, because the 24" is a tad small for that.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have a 2500px+ wide IPS panel... but I just cannot afford the cost of them right now.

I could also opt for just a TV, but they're more expensive and have worse contrast ratio somehow.

[Djinni]

Personally I would choose the Samsung monitor over the ASUS purely beucase it's a Samsung... I know it's going to work and keep working 10 years later.

I'd also like to poin out that becuase DVI-D doesn't have to transmit an audio signal the picture quality is actually alot higher than that of a comparable HDMI. So as long as you have external speakers (And I must assume you do since you're not specifically looking at monitors with built in sound) not having an HDMI port or even having one and not using it in favour of the DVI-D is a blessing.

On another note if a 24inch screen is too small to watch from your bed, I strongly reccomend (without being offensive) that you get your eye's checked. the entire hype about needing a bigger screen is messing with people's brains. As I have said in another thread actually it really doesn't matter how big or small a screen is after the first 2 or 3 minutes of watching it (provided of course everything is displayed in its proper ratio and we're still talking more than 6inches.)

I also had no problem outputting 120Hz to my Samsung 3D Screen with a NVIDIA 9800GTX+ using a DVI connection.

[Chrno]

i got a Iiyama Prolite 27 inch for 290 euro, might be worth checking out aswell.

[Deleted]

I'd also like to poin out that becuase DVI-D doesn't have to transmit an audio signal the picture quality is actually alot higher than that of a comparable HDMI.

Video quality won't be affected by the audio signal. Neither is analogue.

[Asera]

On another note if a 24inch screen is too small to watch from your bed, I strongly reccomend (without being offensive) that you get your eye's checked.

Uh...

Left eye -10.75, Right eye -11.25.

I'm legally blind without glasses. Contacts aren't even enough to correct them, although I can get by with just contacts when I don't have to read anything. :P

[Djinni]

Video quality won't be affected by the audio signal. Neither is analogue.

Uh huh, you know what happens when you run 2 leads close to each other or even twisted with each other? you get electromagnetic interference. Even fibre optic is not immune to it. Nor does it matter what they are transmitting.

[Deleted]

Uh huh, you know what happens when you run 2 leads close to each other or even twisted with each other? you get electromagnetic interference. Even fibre optic is not immune to it. Nor does it matter what they are transmitting.

Yes, and that affects analogue signals. In severe cases it can affect digital ones; but that normally results in complete loss of image instead as in most cases one of the devices will drop the link at such severe levels of interference.

The signal will in normal levels of interference still be interpreted as the same 0, or the same 1.

[dicertification]

I'd also like to poin out that becuase DVI-D doesn't have to transmit an audio signal the picture quality is actually alot higher than that of a comparable HDMI. So as long as you have external speakers (And I must assume you do since you're not specifically looking at monitors with built in sound) not having an HDMI port or even having one and not using it in favour of the DVI-D is a blessing.

That is incorrect. Since DVI and HDMI are both digital if the signal get's degraded you'll notice blocking and other artifacts which is very unlikely to happen unless you're running extreme lengths or damage the cable or ends. not the good ol' "static" or weaving that can occur with analog signals.

If you have digital satellite television and the signal get's degraded what happens? It will get blocky and/or black out. Remember the old 12' satellite dishes (analog). If your signal was week you'd get a degraded picture.

[Djinni]

Maximum Resolution for a Dual Link DVI-D is 3840x2400
Maximum Resolution for HDMI is 2560x1600

HD 1080p is equal to a resolution of 1920x1080

Some useful information for you.. and as far as i'm concerned blocking or blacked out pixels is low quality.

[Wries]

Some useful information for you.. and as far as i'm concerned blocking or blacked out pixels is low quality.

But who the hell has experienced that on a ~1M HDMI cable? Really? Sound making our pixels black isn't a common occurrence!

[Deleted]

Maximum Resolution for a Dual Link DVI-D is 3840x2400

At 33 hertz, yes.
Thus irrelevant for a computer monitor.

If you're going to get into such petty arguments - then Displayport wins either way as its bandwidth of ~17gigabit exceeds that of HDMI and DVI.

Some useful information for you.. and as far as i'm concerned blocking or blacked out pixels is low quality.

Would you buy Monster cables for 'better quality video'?

[Djinni]

At 33 hertz, yes.
Thus irrelevant for a computer monitor.

If you're going to get into such petty arguments - then Displayport wins either way as its bandwidth of ~17gigabit exceeds that of HDMI and DVI.


Would you buy Monster cables for 'better quality video'?

I'd hardly say that a DVI cable is a monster compared to a HDMI one... its only the end connector that changes size by any measure.

[Deleted]

its only the end connector that changes size by any measure.

Which still has a considerable effect on the number of outputs that can be put on any given device. In most cases, a DVI port takes up the approximate space of two Displayport or HDMI outputs.

And I was refering to cables such as these:
HDMI
DVI (Note original price)

[Djinni]

Which still has a considerable effect on the number of outputs that can be put on any given device. In most cases, a DVI port takes up the approximate space of two Displayport or HDMI outputs.

And I was refering to cables such as these:
HDMI
DVI (Note original price)

And no, you are quite right, if we assume that $1 = £1 (becuase it pretty much does..) I would expect the entire cable to be made of gold for that price. Although I have never heard of or seen the term/concept of "monster cables" like that as you put it in england.

[Deleted]

I would expect the entire cable to be made of gold for that price.

Which would still be shit because Gold does not conduct electricity well, unlike copper.

[bals]

Although I have never heard of or seen the term/concept of "monster cables" like that as you put it in england.

Monster is just a brand name. (a company that rips off people who buy cables from best buy/walmart/etc)
Also £1 is quite a bit more than $1