Steamをインストール
ログイン
|
言語
简体中文(簡体字中国語)
繁體中文(繁体字中国語)
한국어 (韓国語)
ไทย (タイ語)
български (ブルガリア語)
Čeština(チェコ語)
Dansk (デンマーク語)
Deutsch (ドイツ語)
English (英語)
Español - España (スペイン語 - スペイン)
Español - Latinoamérica (スペイン語 - ラテンアメリカ)
Ελληνικά (ギリシャ語)
Français (フランス語)
Italiano (イタリア語)
Bahasa Indonesia(インドネシア語)
Magyar(ハンガリー語)
Nederlands (オランダ語)
Norsk (ノルウェー語)
Polski (ポーランド語)
Português(ポルトガル語-ポルトガル)
Português - Brasil (ポルトガル語 - ブラジル)
Română(ルーマニア語)
Русский (ロシア語)
Suomi (フィンランド語)
Svenska (スウェーデン語)
Türkçe (トルコ語)
Tiếng Việt (ベトナム語)
Українська (ウクライナ語)
翻訳の問題を報告
ADVICE: I would look at 1080p or highest res monitor.
looking at newegg and buymac .com's too.
I have one question. What is size of monitor do you want? TV are not better for design.
I had Dell monitor and it is pretty lowest contrast. Plus Dell aren't good as my experience.
I can`t give much of advice on this topic, but this post is utter nonsense. (sorry, no offense)
You don't have to tell that in my face did you? It didn't matter if my post is nonsense to you but is sense to OP. Also the reason why i advice to designer to getting 1080p is because there is enough space for any tool from design program. Such as AutoCAD, video edit or photo edit. I work a lot of thing from tool which is a lot of space for tool. I can remember that i am not happy with 1280X1024 since it is very small space to see design for me.
No, he means it's nonsense because stated contrast ratio is in nearly every instance a blatant lie and completely unreliable for gauging the performance of a screen. That's not to be mean, it's just a fact.
To really determine if a screen is good you need to look at the technology behind it. LEDLCD are better than LCD and slightly worse than plasma but that's just a general sense.
Each monitor line is different and to be honest I'm not capable of providing a truly informed opinion. My hardware knowledge is based almost entirely around computer components.
@OP, for $500 you are in the no man's land of monitors. Most good 1080p monitors are in the $300-$400 range (that I'm aware of) while most higher resolution monitors are in the $600-$1000 range.
James, just stop, seriously. Read[www.practical-home-theater-guide.com] a little[www.cnet.com] about why those numbers are meaningless.
Contrast is important, but right now you simply can't base a purchasing decision that prioritizes contrast ratio on the numbers provided by manufacturers.
Read reviews from reliable sources because manufacturers flat out lie to you about this stuff because it helps sell their product.
EDIT: Until such time as OLED screens become a viable option for mainstream consumers (a technology that creates a realworld scenario that has applicability where the testing methodology for dynamic contrast ratio is actually relevant) then those super high contrast ratios are completely useless.
The 1000:1 number is far more important for real-world applications.
Alright James.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236302
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824014270
www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236302
It is up to you. Wheater if you want lowest ms respson time or 3D.
Did you have THAT Dell monitor? Because I DO Photography and Photoshop work and that one is precalibrated for it. Remember, you want color accuracy not punchy graphics.