up vote 1 down vote favorite
share [g+] share [fb]

I have 2 questions here :

1) Which monitor is best for high quality with good resolution, good refresh rate, and tight pixel pitch and good for eyes ?

2) What is standard distance ( close ,far ) sitting to view monitor ? [ i know it's depended on human eyes ,arms. But i just want to know standard distance between human eyes and monitors )

link|improve this question
100% accept rate
feedback

closed as too localized by random♦ Apr 9 '10 at 5:02

This question is unlikely to ever help any future visitors; it is only relevant to a small geographic area, a specific moment in time, or an extraordinarily narrow situation that is not generally applicable to the worldwide audience of the internet. See the FAQ for guidance on how to improve it.

4 Answers

up vote 4 down vote accepted
  • LCD displays cause far less eye strain than CRTs in my experience.
  • Refresh rate should be as high as the monitor can relaibly handle for that resolution if it is a CRT, I find any less than 75Hz irritating over time. With LCDs this doesn't matter the same as they don't flicker in the same way a CRT does, and most are pretty much fixed at 60Hz.
  • Dot pitch is a personal thing. I Find the pitch of 19" 1280x1024 monitors most comfortable which is why I picked them at work instead of the 22" 1680x1050 that were my other option. Most widescreen monitors have a lower pixel size than a 19"@1280x1024 until you hit 26"@1920x1200 because of the jump in resolution seen in most ranges above 22". You will generally cope with a smaller pixel size on an LCD than you will on a CRT.
  • Distance from CRTs was always recommended to be at least a couple of feet though most people worked closer. I'm not sure what the usual recommendation is for LCDs but I tend to still keep at least a foot-ana-half betwen my nose and the screens.
link|improve this answer
As per dot pitch: there are settings in WinXP and Vista to change the DPI. This will enlarge the screen fonts; however, few applications respect this setting. Macs have "had" resolution-independence for a while, but its never really worked. – A. Scagnelli Aug 7 '09 at 16:47
1  
That works well for text, but graphics (toolbar buttons and the like) don't usually get scaled by applications. Some badly designed apps have displays that break completely if the font DPI is not what the designer used... The zoom feature in Firefox (and IE7/8) work nicely though, as they resize graphics in-step, though the resize operation reduces graphics quality when not resizing to a multiple of 100%. – David Spillett Aug 7 '09 at 17:01
feedback
up vote 1 down vote

Whatever you choose, make sure the PC resolution matches the display resolution. I have seen far too many misconfigured, and it always results in a blurry display.

link|improve this answer
feedback
up vote 0 down vote

LCD monitors are far better on your eyes since they do not have the flicker mentioned above. Another thing which I find in favor of LCD monitors is that many of them come integrated with a glare shield which enhances the viewing comfort significantly. Glare is responsible for some nasty headaches, so definitely get a monitor that has this as a built in feature.

As far as distance is concerned, I would say you should believe your own "eyes". In the good ole days there was a concern about sitting too close to the monitor since CRTs are a radiation source. Modern LCD monitors do not emit the same kind of emissions and therefore are much preferred over the old technology. Since there is no danger of radiation exposure you can pretty much sit any distance that is comfortable. The distance will be slightly different for everyone, so there is no right or wrong answer here.

As for a brand recommendation. You can never go wrong with Sony.

alt text

link|improve this answer
3  
You can frequently go wrong with Sony en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betamax en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MemoryStick en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiniDisk etc – Kyle Cronin Aug 7 '09 at 16:58
The BetaMax format is still used in video production and at some tv stations. It is far superior in picture quality over VHS. VHS won the market over because of the two hour length tape. – Axxmasterr Aug 7 '09 at 17:10
And licensing related costs for VHS were lower, making the units cheaper for the customer while leaving a little extra margin for the manufacturer. Cheap often wins out of quality! – David Spillett Aug 10 '09 at 17:58
feedback

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.