[Macworld]

Post your comments for Review Roundup: Eye-catching 24-inch monitors here

[icerabbit]

At a minimum a review should mention: matte/glossy, resolution and i/o. Whether in text or table format.

[busterpkeaton]

I would recommend to anybody who actually works on the display to get a 16:10 display. 16:9 is great for movies but for little else. I have both at home and the difference in usability is staggering.

[audioguy]

What a superficial review! Fluorescent backlit screens don't just take longer to warm up, but they don't have accurate color even once they're warm. Fluorescents have non-continuous spectrum emissions, with entire colors missing. A good part of the red spectrum is missing, and all balancing does is exaggerate what's left. They're all right for business graphics like pie charts, but not for anything else. Even for seeing your vacation photographs, fluorescents are deficient.

[flybynight]

A chart (and not the one that is linked) would have been really helpful. That way, we could easily see the different specs that are important to us. For me, image quality is the most important thing. For someone else, energy consumption might be a big deal. Too bad there are no high resolution displays in this lineup. Hopefully there are more coming to market soon.

[DavidBarto]

How many of these monitors support the full Adobe RGB Gamut?

[Photonerd]

It should be noted none of these are something you should consider for professional photo or video work. These are all consumer-level displays.

[LeTap]

Photonerd, on 29 May 2012 - 06:00 AM, said:

It should be noted none of these are something you should consider for professional photo or video work. These are all consumer-level displays.

I use the HP LP2465 monitor, calibrated using a Spyder3 calibrator, and use it for "professional photo or video work". I would imagine that the featured HP monitor here would be as good as my LP2465.

[charles Wood]

LeTap, on 29 May 2012 - 07:02 AM, said:

Photonerd, on 29 May 2012 - 06:00 AM, said:

It should be noted none of these are something you should consider for professional photo or video work. These are all consumer-level displays.

I use the HP LP2465 monitor, calibrated using a Spyder3 calibrator, and use it for "professional photo or video work". I would imagine that the featured HP monitor here would be as good as my LP2465.

Any monitor can be used in a professional application but how successfully is a different matter. Although you may be able to calibrate brightness, contrast and basic color balance, the chances are very good that HP doesn't spec your present monitor to sRGB gamut, much less full RGB.

I would find it hard to recommend any of the 'tested' monitors for anything other than casual surfing, text creation or editing family photos/videos. Nothing was mentioned about response time (important for video viewing or editing) or the type of panel. I would guess all are TN types rather than IPS.

This post has been edited by charles Wood: 29 May 2012 - 07:40 AM

[greyone]

Yet not even a word about IPS panel technology, which is always the first consideration when selecting a display for accurate color work. Always.

[Macsailor]

Nice albeit brief overview. It does seems quite odd that you did not do a comparison with an Apple iMac 24.
We love ours for viewing multiple pages and large images.

As a sort of base point for a comparison, it seems like its specs should also be included.
After all, our iMac is about as "consumerish" as you could wish!

Thanks.

[kolive81]

I was eager to see where the LG IPS236V monitor fit in the review and was surprised to not see it, or any LG monitor, listed. I am quite happy with this monitor. I use it with a mac mini and a PS3 with no complaints other than it has a power brick.

[JakeT]

Too many low end monitors. I want IPS and I want higher resolution. My iPad 3 has more pixels, than any of these monitors. I don't want to stare at a cheap piece of junk all day.

[Stewsburntmonkey]

JakeT, on 29 May 2012 - 09:17 AM, said:

Too many low end monitors. I want IPS and I want higher resolution. My iPad 3 has more pixels, than any of these monitors. I don't want to stare at a cheap piece of junk all day.

You also hold your iPad closer to you than a typical monitor would be, so it needs a higher pixel density to attain the same perceived resolution.