I want the lowest possible "ms" number possible...right?
Right...lower is better
YES, plus you want HIGH number contrast ratio otherwise the screen is going
to look faded. 800:1 seems nice, probably goes hand in hand with Response
time though, meaning great response, means great contrast. last thing upon
maybe comparing 2 models, and going which to buy, would probably pixel size.
HTH.
-plow, AKA Sting32, & in NSR mwing32...
tlgtr enlightened us with:
> I want the lowest possible "ms" number possible...right?
tlgtr wrote:
> I want the lowest possible "ms" number possible...right?
As mentioned in a later post the Sony SDM-HS94P Xbrite is very, very nice.
12ms 800:1 though its somewhat pricey. Looks more like a CRT than a LCD.
Mitch
--
Remove "nospam." to reply.
SuSE 9.2 Pro KDE 3.3.2a
"I want the lowest possible "ms" number possible...right?"
You may also want to consider the highest possible resolution.
"tlgtr" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>I want the lowest possible "ms" number possible...right?
>
Ended up with a Princeton 19" with 800:1 contrast and 25ms....(it
seemed in my research that the higher contrast came with a higher ms
number?) Seems OK....
Have to tweak the brightness up a little for nite tracks over what
seems the best for day tracks. If I want the better "ms number" I
would need to go to a 17". I have 14 days to play with it and be able
to return it... Any opinions appreciated...
IMHO without big $$ you cant find a good FP monitor right now, sock the
money away, buy cheaper tube type, for now. 8ms coming soon I read.
tlgtr enlightened us with:
