The Official PC building thread -3rd Edition

VGA is like looking at text through a wrong pair of glasses, it's horrible. Get DVI, pronto!

 

LOL! Definitely!!!

 

Razor sharp with the edits there

 

Hey hey! I was merely expressing myself. Was that you ddp?

 

I run my Acer X223wbd Black through a DVI connection and the image is pretty sharp. I will admit that the 24" 1920 x 1200 Dell 2407WFP has a way cleaner image though. Especially in games there are fewer jaggies on the 24" screen because it has a much better pixel pitch. But I have never had any real problems with the 223wbd image quality-wise. I'm dual screening as I speak with the Acer hooked up through my KVM switch and the image is still pretty damn sharp. I can use it for hours and hours problem free. Though I will admit it's a might nicer than other 22" displays I've used. Really quite funny because I picked it up for $160 maybe 9-10 months ago now.

 

Sam,
The space between the Pixels doesn't, which is what causes the pixelation you mentioned above. It gets lighter to maybe a medium gray, but you can clearly see it on a 22" with the naked eye. It takes my 7 power Opti-Visor for me to see that on my monitor!

Perhaps soft focus was the wrong terminology, as I have no problem with my eyes. I've only worn glasses for about 7 years, and I still don't need them all the time. I was watching "The Bucket List" the other night and something out of the corner of my eye, caught my attention. I went back a little and watched carefully and the thing that attracted my attention was a tiny speck of dust falling off of a lampshade, not even in the scene. I see just fine! I've always equated lack of sharpness to softness. Being an old photographer does that to you. Especially when most of your work is in B&W. Color timing is everything to making a picture say what you want it to say, even more so, in B&W! I just don't quite know the right words to explain the difference. Washed out would be far too strong, because for the most part the picture looks good.

Adam and I have just gotten done comparing TBL on both monitors, and while he can see the difference, he can't put his finger on exactly what that difference is! His explanation is that one gives you what it gives you, which is very good, and the other gives you what you want! From that I'll guess that enough factors are better in the Sceptre's screen, that it's a little bit of everything! It gives you a more complete picture, lacking in nothing!

In the opening scene of "The Bucket List", there's a guy climbing the Himalayas, and the view is just beautifully majestic on adam's screen. On mine, you can smell the snow and feel the cold! It's like choosing one single thing to put your finger on but you couldn't choose one over another as the difference. My deduction is, that the difference is more than likely caused by the above mentioned pixelation! Makes perfect sense to me!

Russ

 

Omega: No, 16:10 is widescreen standard for PCs, 16:9 is widescreen standard for TVs. 16:9 is of course more popular by volume, but for PCs, 16:10 has become the accepted standard.
Overall pixelation has a severe impact on the 'niceness' of a picture you're looking at, but it's not the end of the world...

 

As just a backup monitor my Acer goes above and beyond. I could just as easily use it as a primary monitor and not mind it at all. It fulfills it's intended purpose with gusto. I do love the sheer crispness and clarity of my Dell though. It's certainly big enough too and isn't really dwarfed by my Dell like my old 17" Sceptre(RIP).

 

Sam,
Truthfully seeing the Acer and my Sceptre running side by side, it's reasonably close. There's just a small amount of difference, but clearly the 20" looks the better of the two. It has just a bit more of everything! It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure that the same resolution on a 2" larger screen, won't look as good as it does on the smaller screen!

Russ

 

Well then, Perhaps it was creaky LOL! Has to have been a moderator...

 

Omega: It always is, it's taken you this long to notice?

It doesn't but really, it's not that bad! Most of the people I know would choose an extra 2" over a slighly more accurate picture. Assuming, of course you use DVI. Using VGA can make it a bit nasty.

 

Im gonna lean toward Creaky LOL! It was a minor indiscretion. I doubt that the admin or staff would go out of their way eh.

 

Sam,
I'm no rocket scientist either, and the realization of what was causing the difference in picture quality wasn't evident until I had both monitors running side by side! LOL!! You are right though, it's not that bad. The truth is, it took a really fine quality 720P movie to show the difference. This is also my first experience with the MKV format. I've never seen anything like it before. This is all it says with the movie file, 720P.BluRay.X264-ESiR 4.36GB. I'll send you a PM on it!

Best Regards,
Russ

 

An MKV I think is a Matroska file and it's a wrapper for Ogg Vorbis video and AC3 audio. I have a lot of 720p MKVs. Pretty good quality for the file size.

What are you using to play it? Currently moved to Media Player Classic with the K-Lite media pack. Superior GPU acceleration and video quality over VLC. I have a few fantastic quality 1080p movies and they really look grainy on VLC and the color is a bit wonked. Open in MPC and everything is razor sharp.

Playing a good quality 720p side by side you would be hard pressed to tell the difference between my two monitors. But 1080p is no contest. They look great on the 22" but the 24" is almost lifelike. Super sharp lines and stunning color quality.

 

Actually MKV is a usable container for almost anything. It's typically H.264 video and AC3 or occasionally OGG vorbis audio.

 

Well most I've seen are ogg vorbis video with ac3 audio. That's the majority of my collection. Slightly less often I get ones with H.264 video. Never had one with ogg vorbis audio though.

 

Estuansis,
What you describe above is exactly the difference between watching it on my friends 22" Acer and my 20" Sceptre. They look great on the 22" but the 20" is almost lifelike. Super sharp lines and stunning color quality! I couldn't have described it better, so I borrowed your words!

I don't much care for VLC player myself, and I don't like Windows Media Player classic either. Gom player has better color quality than either of them, but you do have to switch on the AC3 manually in the preferences. It's so easy to use though!

Best Regards,
Russ