1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

<$400 Gaming LCD Continued - Contrast Ratio VS. Display Colors

Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by 1Strive, Feb 12, 2007.

  1. 1Strive

    1Strive New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2005
    Messages:
    682 (0.22/day)
    Thanks Received:
    30
    Location:
    Texas
    Continued from...
    http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=25202

    When Buying LCDs is Contrast Ratio or Display Colors more important?

    In both cases higher is better.

    Contrast Ratio- the ratio of the luminosity of the brightest and the darkest color the system is capable of producing.
    "800:1 is better than 700:1 and so on."


    Display Colors- (as far as I can tell) is the number of collors a display can display.
    Measured in bits or millions of colors displayed. 24-bit = 16.7 million colors
    "16.7 million colors is better than 16.2 million colors"

    I need help understanding "Display Colors" what it means and why it's important.

    I am looking at 2 ACER Displays and want to get the best of these 2.

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16824009094

    or

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16824009102

    ========================================================
    I am also looking at this LG display. But I can't find the Spec of "Display Colors" for it.
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16824005088

    Thanks to KTR and Bruin04 for all their help. And to the other TPU members who post.

    Thanks,
    1STRIVE
  2. 1Strive

    1Strive New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2005
    Messages:
    682 (0.22/day)
    Thanks Received:
    30
    Location:
    Texas
    Thanks.

    I still don't understand. Tried Wiki but no help.
  3. ktr

    ktr

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2006
    Messages:
    7,407 (2.45/day)
    Thanks Received:
    687
    this is what i have found out

    6bit is decent for gaming, 8bit is decent for photo editing.
  4. djbbenn

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,736 (0.81/day)
    Thanks Received:
    44
    Location:
    Canada
    Let me say it like this to you... You could be there all day looking at the specs of one display to another. And no matter what, you're going to be second guessing before you actually go ahead and purchase one. I work at a computer retail store, and I when I'm not doing tech work, I'm helping people choose systems. They ask me questions, and I give them comparisons to cars or something that they can understand. Then I get the customers who want the technical side of it. I answer their questions, and they stand there looking at me nlike I have 3 heads.

    What I'm saying is, you almost just have to go head and get one. Yeah look at the specs, but don't get to in depth with it. There's a very good chance that when you get the display, you're going to be extremely happy with it no matter what. Yes 800:1 is better than 700:1 and 4ms is better than 6ms. Ever hear of the point of diminish of return? Where something gets to the point that no matter how much better the specs are, it doesn't get any better? Well it is a bit extreme in this case, but can you see the difference between a 6ms and 4ms response time? Unless you're benching marking your display, you're not going to see a difference. You can game on a 12ms monitor quite safely to be honest.

    I have a Samsung SyncMaster 205BW... 1680x1050, 6ms, 600:1, 300 cd/m2, HDCP. I was comparing it to other monitors, and basically they were trading response time off for contrast ratio or something to that effect. I finally just went ahead and bought it, and I absolutely love this monitor - one of the best things I've bought for my PC in a while. Worst part about it is, I have keep up to date to with video cards to be able to play a nice settings due to it's large resolution.

    Some quick guidelines though - Stay under 8ms to be safe (get 6 or even lower great), higher contrast ratio is better, so try to get 600:1 or higher. Brightness, well 300 is pretty much what everything has. Make sure it has DVI, but I don't even think you can get a 1050 screen without a DVI port. Almost all high-end displays use 16.7 million colors. Pixel pitch / pixels, well do't get too worried over this. Samsung, Viewsonic, and LG are the brands I'd stick to - those Acers you are looking at have a nice image, I've used both of them. Biggest thing I didn't like about them was the lack of height adjustment. Also, 22" 1050 is not going to have as tight of image as 20" 1050 (still looks great though). Read some reviews, but do not get too hung up on them.

    -Dan
  5. 1Strive

    1Strive New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2005
    Messages:
    682 (0.22/day)
    Thanks Received:
    30
    Location:
    Texas
    Thank you, for taking the time to respond to my thread.

    I take GREAT JOY in "looking at the specs".
    I consider that, in itself, a hobby outside of just PC Gaming. I research and discuss every single part of my Gaming PC Rig.
    I wanted to know what Unified Shaders in DX10 are and why they are important. I wanted to know how exactly CSAA works as opposed to AA.

    I wanted to know why my "Maps" in games loaded so slow. Come to find out it was the limitation of my Hard Drive Sub System when uncompressing the files. So now I run 2 Raptors in RAID-0. As you know those are 10,000RPM drives and already faster than any 7,200RPM drives, but I run 2 and now have HALF the load times in most cases.

    If I was just a customer in a retail store I would probably buy a HDTV that was 720 instead of 1080.
    But I am NOT, and I would notice difference between the two. :D

    I don't second guess myself after the purchase is made. If I did, I would have a Core 2 Duo by now. lol

    My point is that I come here to discuss, and research, highly technical matters beyond; the normal customer, user, or power user.
    Here there are people who know, or know where to look. I haven't had anyone BS me here. TPU is my favorite place online, it's home.

    So yes, I still care about the difference between 16.2 million and 16.7 million colors.
    I want to know what that means and why it is important.


    Thanks again,
    V/R :respect:
    1STRIVE

    P.S. I am so glad this isn't a professional memo. This way I can use "I" all the time. lol
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2007
  6. ktr

    ktr

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2006
    Messages:
    7,407 (2.45/day)
    Thanks Received:
    687
    16.7 is 8bit (8x8x8 = 24bit in all)

    Anything about 300 is a high contrast.

    I say go for the 2216.
  7. BigD6997

    BigD6997 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    891 (0.28/day)
    Thanks Received:
    9
    i still like the LG...

    i feel it is a nicer product, tho is a bit more expensive, but it is a 22in

    i can tell the difference in colors and everything with a 3000:1 contrast HDTV that im using... its alot better than a normal monitor wich kinda look washed out to me now
  8. 1Strive

    1Strive New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2005
    Messages:
    682 (0.22/day)
    Thanks Received:
    30
    Location:
    Texas

    I will keep your recommendation in mind. Thanks for all the input.

    By the way I was just over at Guru3d.com reading the reviews on the 8800GTS 320mb models and the nubers are good until you start playing at 1600x1200 and 1680x1050 resolutions. I am glad I have the 640 model. Ready for CRYSIS at 1680x1050. (I will still have my CRT if I want to go higher than that!)

    They (Guru3d.com) did a poll on what resolutions users are gaming at.
    [​IMG]

    It looks like you are in good company at 1280x1024 w/ 1680x1050 coming in third.:toast:

    --------
    Also, since I am moving back to the US next month, I cecked w/ the shipping people and it's going to take like 60days to get my stuff over there! I will have to Mail or FedEX my PC and display. For this reason, I am now planning to wait to buy a LCD until I can have it shipped to my house in the US.
    This way I don't have to pay for shipping and insurance twice.:rockout:

    Hopefully in 30 days or so that ACER 2216 will still be my best bet.:eek:
    Thanks for all the help KTR.
    Later,
    1STRIVE
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2007
  9. 1Strive

    1Strive New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2005
    Messages:
    682 (0.22/day)
    Thanks Received:
    30
    Location:
    Texas
    Who knows what I will choose in 30 days? I know that right now I am planing on that ACER, but it is still too far away to be sure.

    Also that LG isn't in stock on Newegg anymore.

    That is interesting about you comment on the 3000:1 contrast ratio. I thought it was just a marketing ploy. Maybe I can actuall get to the US and then go see the LG model in Best Buy, Circut City, or FRYS - and then decide.
  10. bruins004 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,480 (0.77/day)
    Thanks Received:
    75
    Sorry for not responding to your PM sooner.
    Anyways, I see why you are confused here.

    In on case, you have the Acer AL2216 which has a better horizontal viewing angle, more colors (doubt it is an 8 bit panel since they are very hard to find if there are any out there, most likely uses an 6 bit with dithering, however, they are very hard to tell the difference apart).

    However, the Acer AL2223 has the better contrast ratio by 100:1, but less colors.

    If you are going to be gaming or watching DVDs I would say that the colors matter more than a slight difference between the contrast. Also, do not forget that you do have a better viewing angle (horizontally).

    The Acer AL2216 is the best bet when viewing DVDs or gaming.

    I am also interested in why you picked 2 22" monitors?

    As for the LG monitor, it does have a 3000:1 contrast ratio.
    All of their monitors have high contrast ratios (they are trying to differentiate themselves from the marker), but if you also note, I cannot find that amount of colors they use.

    EDIT: I forgot I didnt answer your question. Contrast Ratio is how well the colors blend together and creates a sharper picture.

    Display Colors are the different amount of colors a display has. 16.7 million colors is closer to the amount of colors a CRT has. If you look at a CRT and a 16.2 million color LCD, it just looks really bad.
    That is why I usually go with the amount of colors over contrast ratio.

    Plus most monitors offer very similar contrast ratios (except for LG since they have very high contrast ratios). To tell you the truth I see very little difference between 700:1 and 2000:1 contrast ratio. But I can see a big difference between 16.7 million and 16.2 million colors.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page