"Evan Cooch" wrote in message
...
Greetings -

I have 4-5 machines in my office, and at home, all using high-end big
(19 - 21
inch) CRT-based monitors. However, for a variety of reasons, I want to
purchase
LCD monitors for a couple of the machines. I've been doing the requisite
background reading, and have looked at a number of the tech specs for some
monitors that in my price range.

However, I'm puzzled as to the relative merits/value of some specs, which
I see
touted over an over. Specifically, 'contrast ratio', and 'brightness'.
Now, I
know 'technically' what these are, but I'm puzzled what the relative
advantage/disadvantages are in real use, for some monitors whihc have the
same
price, but different specs.

For example, comparing Samsung's 180 and 171 17-inch LCD's. Basically the
same
price, same dimensions, same everything - except one has a 450:1 contrast
ratio
(compared to 350:1), and a 270 nit brightness, compared to 250.

It isn't just Samsung - I can find many examples of monitors that are
basically
the same price, where the only real difference is contrast ratio and/or
brightness.

So, is there really any perceptible difference between 350:1 vs 450:1 for
contrast ratio, or 270 vs 250 for brightness? All other things being equal
(which they seem to be, more or less), is it generally the best strategy
to go
for higher CR and brightness scores?


In normal conditions 250 nits is way too bright (my one is set at 34%)
unless the monitor is in a very bright room or possibly hit by direct
sunlight.
Contrast is very important if you do image editing or watch DVD movies or
TV. CRTs achieve 900:1 so 450:1 is going to look a lot better than 350:1.
Response time is also very important. My 17" NEC achieves 16ms and that
means no noticeable smearing on fast moving objects.