...so it will be helpful if they look good at a variety of viewing angles. I expect to be viewing the left and right-most monitors at an angle (with them set up on the obutto monitor triple mount).

Thanks!

If angle of view is important, IPS monitors claim to be better off axis -- and they are better than TN.

Thing is, the fine print:

As one goes off axis, the contrast ratio begins to lower.

Viewed head on, a high contrast cPVA screen delivers a genuine 3000:1 static contrast. Other screens, including IPS, deliver 300:1 to 1000:1 (which is not outstanding). The vastly overpriced Samsung triple 23" monitor setups made for Eyefinity use the super high contrast cPVA (or they did). I have three 23" Samsung cPVA monitors in the house (bought at about $200 each -- vs $1800 list for the 3 Eyefinity monitors). No 27" version.

When they say 178 degrees field of view, the criterion ALLOWS a 10:1 contrast ratio from that off axis position (very very very faded view). So, the true, usable off-axis view will be less than the advertised number -- because most folks will think 10:1 is unusable.

As you indicate, for something like Eyefinity, setting the side monitors at an angle solves much of the problem. It is actually practical to set them so as you turn your head to look at them, they are "head on" -- so no fading (mine are set that way).

Regarding the best 27 inch. The only one I own is a Samsung 27" combo monitor/HDTV. Its OK, but being TN, off axis viewing fades quickly. So, I have nothing that I would recommend from my own experience.

What aspect ratio? 16:10 or 16:9?

How much donero y'all wanna spend?

Super...this saves me posting the exact same thread

What about thin bezels are they important to you as well?

Hmm, haven't considered 16:9 or 16:10. Should I care which one? Want the highest resolution I can achieve on each monitor.

I'm bracing myself to spend a pretty penny overall for the entire system (which includes the Obutto gaming chair and its accessories), so I don't wanna skimp on the monitors. Not tip-top of the line, but not budget either. So expensive but not massively so for the monitors, if that helps narrow it down.

From what I have read, paying for the privilege of thin bezels is not worth it- i.e., those monitors that tout themselves as thin bezelled are overpriced. I'd like to the get the thinnest I can, but am not going to cough up lots more cash to get that.

Sound advice....I shall watch to see what people recommend. I'd like to get 3 monitors for under £300 each.

I saw an article recently about a 3x1 Portrait Display setup with 3 30" monitors - see page 2
here


Also a good place to buy - you want the UltraSharps...
outlet

WC

get the Acer 27" S3D Monitors..S3D is Awesome and in surround it will blow you away..

3D? That requires glasses, right? I think I'll pass- going to 3 monitors is already enough of a leap for me. Thanks for the suggestion though.

How big is your desk???!?

I have one 24" and have little room left with the PC on one side and my "stack o'stuff" on the other.



The Jedi Master

peppergomez,

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3348639/Re_Review_Obutto_oZone_Gaming_.html#Post3348639

another thought on the topic

FWIW, good point. My three 24" monitors (with the side ones angled towards me) measure slightly more than 4 feet across -- I assume 27" and 30" would be proportionally wider.

I think I am hoping to get a 1920x1200 (16:10?) resolution monitor, but these seem to be less common than the 1920x1080 (16:9?) ones. Why is that, and does anyone have any suggestions for a good 1920x1200 27" monitor?

There are more pixels vertically. Many (possibly most?) monitors (not all) allow one to set the screen resolution to 1:1. That is, a 1920x1200 (16:10) will accurately display 1920x1080 (16:9) without distortion (there will be black bands on top and bottom). So, the right 1920x1200 has no downsides from an aspect ratio point of view.

On the other hand, 1080 is cheap to produce and the "standard" today. So, one finds few 1200 monitors -- unless, one is willing to pay for an upper end monitor. In that case (upper end monitor), nearly any one from a major manufacturer would be acceptable.

In that case, here (in retrospect after studying test reports), is the Dell U2711 I should have bought (in place of the U2410 I own). Note its 2560x1440 -- bigger monitors really need more resolution because the pixels start to become too visible. Thing is, price wise, its probably overkill to buy 3 -- for most of us On the other hand, it is a long term investment compared to the rest of the system

Dell U2711

Note however, it is still 16:9 (the new standard).

Anyhow, good luck with your search. As posted above, I have no personal knowledge of a good, inexpensive 27" I would recommend.

In closing, here is a site that keeps an up to date list of high end IPS monitors available in the world -- maybe one of those will do the job:

Listing of Mid to High End IPS Monitors

As you can see, not much choice in 27". The choice is in 23" to 24". So, maybe you'll need to "settle" for a low cost 1920x1080 TN 27".

I've been flying MS FSX for the last hour using Eyefinity. Gave me another thought.

If 27" only comes in 16:9, then the actual vertical height of the monitor in inches won't be much different than the vertical height of a 24" monitor in 16:10.

What is needed in a real wide field (Eyefinity or Nvidia equal) is more vertical height per width (in my opinion).

On that basis, 27" 16:9 is no advantage over 24" 16:10 -- because both have the same vertical height in inches. Moreover, the 24" 16:10 has more vertical height in pixels (which is an advantage in my opinion -- looking at MS FSX just now).

So, maybe consider that if you can't get 27" 16:10 (1920x1200), then go to 24" 16:10 -- it will be cheaper, fit the desk better, and you won't be missing anything visually -- may even be better because of more vertical pixels.

WIll COD support 1920x1200? what about three of them in the future when we have graphics cards that can run COD in eyefinity etc?

In my work I could use the extra vertical space now I think about it.

sorry for hijack

Edited - Just been reading up on IPS monitors. They sound great for my work but isn't the response time of 6-8 ms is a bit slow for gaming?

Lots of people think so. Yet, I've tested my monitors (I have 2ms, 5ms, 8ms) and don't see it.

I try all sorts of fast and slow movements to try and see "blur" (other than the blur caused by things moving fast). Don't see it.

I tried a "special" test target that enhances blur. Then I could see more blur with 8ms than with 2ms -- BUT, all (8ms, 5ms, 2ms) were blurred in that difficult to pass test.

So, for practical purposes, I can't see it (a practical difference between 8ms and 2ms). To be objective, maybe my eyes are "slow". Maybe someone else really can see blur in a normal game. So, I don't make guarantees. However, all in all, I think "fast vs slow" is simply a "selling point" that makes little or no difference in the range of 2ms to 8ms for most folks most of the time.

For example, the $1800 Samsung special triple monitor setup is 8ms -- virtually the same 23" Samsung 8ms cPVA panels we own (have 3 of them bought as separate panels for under $200 each -- that's more like it ). Those are the 8ms panels I tested. One can easily see blur in a special blur test target (basically a snow white object moving on a pitch black background), but I can't see it in a normal simulation or shooter game. Would Samsung sell 8ms for Eyefinity gaming (at that ridiculous price) if it were garbage??

Having written that, I know there used to be really slow monitors that were too slow -- I'm only referring to the H-IPS, S-IPS, cPVA, and TN monitors of relatively new build that I have tested.

All opinion of the author

That's some great info Allen. I see your point and there are 6 m/s IPS monitors available.

Will Cliffs of Dover support 1920x1200 resolution or would you get a black bar?

Not sure about the OP but I am seriously concidering getting two monitors as I doubt I will be able to run a triple monitor setup for cliffs of dover for a while until more powerful graphics cards come out and when they've optimised the code a bit more for SLI. The later down the line I could pick up a third monitor. I need two for work though and would just use one for gaming for now.

I presume others have already tried CoD and know the answers. I have been waiting for the North American version.

I am getting my IL2: CoD copy late tomorrow (if the shipping tracking is correct). I'll be trying 1920x1200 and Eyefinity 5760x1200 and CrossFireX and single GPU. Possibly, I'll have an idea on Tuesday (or Wednesday) regarding my system.

Also looking at a single 30" Dell 16:10 with crazy resolution. Sure it's expensive but not as expensive as 3xIPS monitors.

The sim I am most likely to fly on this is Cliffs of Dover and short of a kray super computer I don't think many people have got Eyefinity or the Nvidia equivalent working.

Food for thought......

I personally like my Samsung P2770FH 27" monitor and use it for all kinds of work and games from spreadsheets and graphics to shooters and sims. It works great.

I now have CoD up and running. Initial findings:

Eyefinity 5760x1200 is automatically detected and the game came up in that resolution.

Quickly, I went to 1920x1080. It displays properly with a black bar top and bottom of my 1920x1200.

1920x1200 is also selectable and displays correctly (no black bars).

There is a very convenient real time zoom control to get the field of view adjusted as you fly. In general, control customization for all aspects of CoD seems superior.


In a quick flight with no other aircraft at 1920x1200, flying low over London with all graphics settings on HIGH (there is a VERY HIGH and UNLIMITED for a couple items -- I only set HIGH -- can't see a visual difference -- maybe if I looked harder -- but FPS is slower with UNLIMITED) I typically (not average) get 30 to 40FPS outside the cockpit and 15 to 30+ FPS inside (the low FPS are when I have the standard view out the window and see both the outside world and the cockpit instruments -- all instruments or all outside is faster). These are not final numbers or very scientific. Eyefinity is slower but I don't have time right now to work it out -- have some chores today -- yuk.

1 CPU core is used heavily, another is used moderately heavily, other cores not used much or at all. One GPU is nearly maxed. The other GPU is about 1/2 used -- that does not seem right for CrossFireX. I need to try non-Crossfire and other things but don't have time now. Small hesitations in the image are noticed more often than expected (others have reported that). At high altitude FPS is better -- sometimes much better.

The entire computer system only uses 3GB of system memory while CoD is running. I assume that's the 32bit limit combined with my 1GB GPU.

Thanks for the update Allen.

Just out of curiosity which do you prefer out of your monitors? The HP or Dell.

In a twist of fate I am in Abu Dhabi using 4 Dell 1920x1200 monitors and while they're probably not set up properly I find them hard to look at for long periods of time and also there seems to be a pink hue when looking at white pages.

I have been toying with a HP 30" monitor which would be great for COD but I'm not sure I'll have enough real estate for work with that alone.

Any ideas if it is possible to have a custom resolution (In cliffs of dover) say 1x 30" IPS and then a 24" either side. Or how about two cheap monitors in portrait mode? It's probably accademic because the native resolution of the 30" monitor will take a lot for GPU power than a single 24 or 27" 1920x1200 monitor. Also for the price of a single 30" IPS I could probably afford 3x24" IPS monitors.

Tricky choices ahead!!

All Dells (and HPs and so forth) are not alike -- as I found out the hard way.

Nominally, my 24" Dell and its 27" sibling were the SAME technology and very highly rated, on paper. However, when Dell bought a production run of 24" screens (Dell does not make them themselves), they got a screen whose manufacturing process was mis-engineered. Rather than dump the screens and have a new manufacturing process developed, they sold them. I bought one.

Also, the initial production run had bad firmware that caused gray levels to be slightly greenish (if I remember, maybe it was reddish). Mine had the next firmware, so did not have that problem.

Meanwhile, the 27" screen was nominally the same (but larger). However, it was procured separately and the manufacturing process developed to produce it worked well.

So, though nominally virtually identical (except for size), the two monitors were noticeably different in performance. That's what the test reports said, but I did not realize how true they were.

Moral, one has to read and "believe" the test reports.

In the mean time, my HP monitors (in signature below) are the "low cost" HP S-IPS 8 bit units (vs Dell H-IPS 10 bit). I got them for $150 less than the Dell. They don't have the 110 color gamut of the Dell. But, they perform nearly the same. So, if one can get them for around $400 (as I did), the HP units are better. At the same price, I'd buy the Dell (but, it is not as perfect as it should be for H-IPS).

Bottom line. One can't assume that a top brand name company always makes top stuff -- regardless of the selling price. Read the test reports.

Regarding color:

If one spends a lot on monitors, its probably worth buying a hardware color calibrator -- as virtually no monitors are shipped calibrated (the Dell was) and, if they are, they drift with time. I got a Pantone huey Pro calibrator. Works great. However, in Eyefinity it calibrates only the center monitor easily -- so, 3 monitors of the same type is a good idea. A professional using a color monitor for color work that they intend to sell, must have a calibrated monitor, I think.

huey Pro Color Calibrator

Egads, scary stuff. So I'll need to read several reviews of whatever monitor I buy? I assume that's what you mean by "Test reports"?

I would Pepper...your going to be spending fortune if you get 3 top of the rage IPS type monitors.

I am shocked at the heat these buggers are giving off and I've read HP 30" monitors at least aren't as hot as Dells.

Yes, my two HP plus one Dell create a "fireplace" effect. Like sitting several feet from a fireplace -- warm in the winter, but not too hot in the summer (with air conditioning turned on) Not awful or too noticeable until I am a foot or foot and a half away from them (my normal sitting distance is 2.5 feet).

Each monitor draws about 60 watts. So, its like three 60W light bulbs.

Mine have the standard back light. Newer technology LED back lighted monitors may be cooler.

Yes.

I keep wondering if I'd be better off just buying a 46-52 inch 1080p TV for use with the Obutto cockpit. To be honest, my eyes aren't what they used to be, anymore. The 2560 x 1600 resolution of my Dell is a double-edged sword. *sigh*

Hi Shan2

The office I'm in as well as having quad 24" IPS Dells setups has also got what I assume are 42" Widescreen LCD Monitors which project what I am looking at on the 24" displays. Those big Sonys look pretty good to me and are pretty clear even though they're only 1920x1080. I think they've got 9 m/s response and I was also wondering whether they'd be good enough for gaming and CLOD.

Only thing would be you couldn't sit too close to it.

I tried our 54" Plasma HDTV briefly (before I decided to go Eyefinity). I wrote up some findings -- now way down this thread someplace.

Nutshell: As noted by JG5_Emil, you can't sit close as the view is too pixelated.

There are tables published of "viewing distance" versus "pixel size". They boil down to approximately this: For 1920x1080 (or 1920x1200), sit at least 1.3 times the diagonal from the monitor (or HDTV) -- preferably a little farther.

I decided even a 42" screen would be too close -- if on my desk (have to sit over 4 feet away). However, in a special setting it could work.

Meanwhile, my 24" Eyefinity setup is good from roughly 32" viewing distance -- and its slightly over 48" wide with the side monitors angled towards me (the beginnings of surround). Really good ambiance in a flight sim. Basically the view covers my eyeball field of view past the edges of clear vision (measured roughly 140 degree FOV) -- have to turn my head to look left and right as in a real situation.

FWIW, I went from a 19" standard LCD to a 24" LED-lit LCD and the difference in heat is noticeable. Nothing like when I went from the CRT to the LCD, of course (that was a BIG drop), but it was still felt if you were within a foot of the monitor.

Now I only have 1 monitor and it sits a good 2 feet from me, depending on my position (close for FPS/RTS/browsing, far for simming/racing because of controller positions), so the heat change was negligible.

However, for anyone going for 3 monitors, especially if they're over 19" in size, I would think LED would be the way to go. Cooler, which means less energy to pay for both directly and indirectly (cooling), and frankly it's brighter without being washed out like my old LCD would be at the same brightness level.


The Jedi Master

Keeping on with my IL-2 CoD findings...

Original post deleted... because it was probably misleading.

Working better now in Eyefinity. CrossFireX may be a problem. I get typical 17FPS in Eyefinity 5760x1200 with "HIGH" in-game graphics settings selected -- single GPU (no CrossFireX). Bare bones mission.

Too big for the Obutto shan2. Before I switched to the 27" and used the 37" Viewsonic, it was right on the edge of feeling like you're in the first row at the movie theatre. Better to change your font size to 12/13 from 10/11 and stay with a high quality monitor 27-30" with 1920 resolution (or higher).

But then I'm not a big fan of 3 monitor gaming either.

I got the LCD before the LEDs were available, but if I was buying now, a single, best quality possible monitor in 27-30 with a secondary, smaller LCD monitor for data and reference is what I'd get.

http://ledmonitors.info/LCD-vs-LED_monitor.html

Are there many 1920x1200 LED monitors out there I can't seem to find any apart from a dell which is coming out soon.

Thanks, guod. I hope Chris returns from vacation sometime soon! I'm sure Panther is also dying to know about the cockpit measurements.

I'll start off with the single monitor setup. I'd like to have a touch screen 22" monitor for reference. Why can't they make decent-sized tablets?

Final update, I hope: IL2: CoD works okay now with Eyefinity 5760x1200 and CrossFireX. I turned off the MIRROR with the "M" key -- only took a couple hours of experimenting over a couple days to find that "obvious" solution (couldn't find the mirror switch when I first looked, then stopped looking). FPS is low over London in a 6 vs 10 fight (12 to 24FPS) -- graphics set to "HIGH". But, its steady most of the time and I can live with it (others may have differing opinions). Seems to be CPU limited.

What ever happened to that "Quad HD" resolution standard for new displays? That would be the cat's meow for sims.

Has anyone heard any info on the new samsung LED monitors?

iirc They were supposed to be out this summer and in 23" and 27" screen sizes. thin bezel, advertised as 120hz, but that may be only for 3D apps.

http://www.samsung.com/sg/consumer/flagship/LS23A750DS/


edit...here is some more info on the product. There are several 'previews' of this product from the past 6 months that state they are due out soon.
http://flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1294648344
The SA950 range has a very slim frame and a metallic stand with a tilt function. The monitor is asymmetric, just like previous Samsung monitors such as the 971P and the frame is curved at the bottom. SA750 is also very slim and has a very small stand with a tilt function. The bezel has also been reduced significantly.
Both ranges offer 23 and 27-inch models called S23A750, S23A950, S27A750 and S27A950 and all four have 2D-to-3D conversion built-in.

I still can't make my mind up. Its either 2x27inch super hi res monitors (doubt any game would be run on three of those) and play CLOD on just one of them or order 3x24" IPS. Dell just released a cheaper U2412M which is 300 quid and LED backlight.

I just find 24" a bit small but then I'd have 3 of them plus the extra vertical resolution