Monitors w/massive brightness range

[ddrueding]

My wife and I spend most of our waking time at home at our desks. To make the best of this time, I've put the desks in front of the biggest window in the house, allowing the best view.

This brings me to our problem. At night, our current monitors don't get nearly dim enough to be able to enjoy the view, and during the day they aren't bright enough. I've attached a poor picture to give you an idea.

Does anyone know of a monitor that has a particularly high range? How hard would it be to modify one? 24-27" 1920x1080 would be ideal.

Thanks.

 

[Stereodude]

Get some blinds for the day and don't work in the dark at night?

 

[ddrueding]

The blinds will be arriving on Wednesday, but that significantly misses the point.

 

[LunarMist]

That is an awful way to work on a monitor. :sqnt: Ideally the background should be evenly illuminated and relatively neutral gray or white in color with minimal distractions. If you want to look out the window once in a while to rest the eyes consider placing the monitors at an angle to the the window so that it is not continuously in the line of vision.

 

[ddrueding]

This really isn't a productivity station. This is where we pass the time. Watching what is going on outside is as significant as whatever is on the monitor.

If we are going to work hard, the blinds are blackout with a white interior, so the "ideal" is available as well.

 

[LunarMist]

I don't think it is very good for the human eye to be forcibly multitasking in extrenme contrast all the time. It only gets worse with age. There is no way I would be on display in the window on a public street either.

Some HDTV monitors have autobrightness, no? I think you could start with that and perhaps bypass the photodiode to control it more directly as needed.

 

[ddrueding]

I don't think it is very good for the human eye to be forcibly multitasking in extrenme contrast all the time.

That is a concern I've thought of. Once the blinds arrive, I suspect we will be using them fairly regularly. I would like the option though.

It only gets worse with age. There is no way I would be on display in the window on a public street either.

Screw 'em. It's my world, too. If me watching the street/neighbors makes them uncomfortable, they can get blinds As for me, while I won't be at my desk naked scratching myself, the rest I don't care so much about. There is a difference between "visible to the random people walking around" and "visible to the internet". From a security standpoint, I suspect I'm safer with them seeing me seeing them than either not seeing the other.

Some HDTV monitors have autobrightness, no? I think you could start with that and perhaps bypass the photodiode to control it more directly as needed.

My AQUOS has that, but the range is pathetically low.

 

[Howell]

My T510 seems to have a very wide range.

 

[LunarMist]

The Google hits come up as a notebook on the first few pages. Who makes the monitor with the same name?

 

[Mercutio]

He was referring to the notebook. The displays on new Thinkpads are indeed very nice.

 

[Stereodude]

He was referring to the notebook. The displays on new Thinkpads are indeed very nice.

Too bad they're all low resolution. What happened to the good old days when you get could get a 1920x1200 display in a 15.4" laptop? :diablo:

 

[LunarMist]

People are tired of going blind looking at the miniscule pixels?

 

[Mercutio]

Too bad they're all low resolution. What happened to the good old days when you get could get a 1920x1200 display in a 15.4" laptop?

Not on a Lenovo. 1440x900 is the highest resolution I've seen on a 14/15" Lenovo screen. If you want to go blind looking at a high-res Dell screen, I gotta tell you, there are better ways to go blind.

 

[LunarMist]

Not on a Lenovo. 1440x900 is the highest resolution I've seen on a 14/15" Lenovo screen. If you want to go blind looking at a high-res Dell screen, I gotta tell you, there are better ways to go blind.

You are more qualified than most. :mrgrn:

Bad LM, bad. :smack:

 

[Mercutio]

You are more qualified than most.

I'm not arguing and frankly given my situation I don't think anyone can blame me.

 

[Stereodude]

People are tired of going blind looking at the miniscule pixels?

Please the 1400x1050 14.1" screen in my Dell D610 (work machine) is easily readable. Same goes for my 1680x1050 15.4" screens in my Dell Inspiron E1505 and 8600.

 

[CougTek]

Not on a Lenovo. 1440x900 is the highest resolution I've seen on a 14/15" Lenovo screen.

I used to have a Thinkpad R50p with a 1600x1200 15" screen.

 

[Mercutio]

I used to have a Thinkpad R50p with a 1600x1200 15" screen.

Sadly 4:3 LCDs have gone the way of the dodo. Sniff.

 

[LiamC]

Please the 1400x1050 14.1" screen in my Dell D610 (work machine) is easily readable. Same goes for my 1680x1050 15.4" screens in my Dell Inspiron E1505 and 8600.

To you. Others may not be so fortunate.

 

[Stereodude]

To you. Others may not be so fortunate.

Hey, I didn't say the high resolution screen should be standard, though frankly I don't see the problem with that. Text size, icon size, and just about everything else should be scalable independent of the physical pixel count on the screen. Look at the iPhone 4. It has a very high resolution screen, but the text is still the same size as the previous versions of the phone with a lower resolution screen. Stuff just looks sharper / crisper.

I was lamenting the fact that high resolution screens aren't offered as options on most laptops anymore, which means I can't get what I really want if I were to buy a new laptop.

 

[LunarMist]

About 25% of the people at work have their monitors set to a low, non-native resolution. I have one of the older LCDs, a 19" 1280x960 (or is it 1280x1024?). It is fine for the purpose, and certainly better than the skimpy 20" 1600x900 small-pixeled monitors they have been installing lately.

 

[ddrueding]

24" 1080P is perfect IMHO. For our users that don't like things that small, it scales nicely to 720P.

 

[LunarMist]

Sure, but 24" is not standard for most office work. Or maybe it is somewhere and I don't know. At most of the places I visit users have 20-22" monitors except where there is a special business need such as publishing or CAD/CAM workers. Where I work it is no problem to request two small monitors, but not one large one. In Asia I see many workers have only a laptop and no monitor. They have smaller workspaces.

 

[ddrueding]

24" 1080P is the current bang/buck from what I can see. I buy about 2 a week. Larger than that and I get them a 32-37" HDTV.

 

[Mercutio]

I buy almost everyone 22" screens. They're the monitors that cost $120 - $150 and it's just that simple.

 

[time]

Samsung F2380 might be a bit small for Ddrueding, but it's noteworthy for having a phenomenal 3000:1 static contrast ratio. Not that bright, but really good at doing blacks. Good for office use, just okay for games, so-so for graphics (but at least it's not a TN panel). I'm about to specify it for general office use with some limited graphics work. Unfortunately, Samsung Australia doesn't import anything except TN sh*t, so I can't get one myself. :boom:

In theory, an LED-backlit LCD should have more scope to vary the light level, but I don't know if you can rely on being able to control that yourself. I used to have a Fujitsu monitor where you could adjust the backlight level independently of brightness and contrast; at night I'd just turn that down to minimum, which worked extremely well.

 

[Stereodude]

I thought most LCDs now days had a backlight brightness control (like laptops) that worked independently of traditional brightness and contrast? My 24" LCD monitor does. My 52" TV does.

 

[LunarMist]

Do they all have contrast and brightness? I think most monitors have only a brightness. I can't find all the manual controls on mine, but I set the brightness to 100 cd/m2. 120 is the max supported by the warranty.

 

[Stereodude]

I think most still have contrast & brightness at least if they have an analog input.

 

[ddrueding]

Both of the ASUS monitors I have in front of me have both contrast and brightness. Being able to independently adjust the LED back light sounds very promising.

 

[LunarMist]

But isn't that the brightness? What other control do you have for the backlight?

 

[time]

AFAIK, backlight level is what they're using to achieve "dynamic" contrast, so you hand over control if you enable that. That is, I'm saying the manufacturer may not expose that functionality directly.

Which model monitor do you have?

 

[LunarMist]

I don't understand how dynamic backlighting is relevant for a monitor that normally uses fixed values from the LUT to map the output with a fixed backlighting. Maybe it would exist in a TV being used as a monitor in some modes.

 

[LunarMist]

I found manual brightness/contrast controls under the Custom (non-calibrated) setting. The contrast should normally be set to 100%. Less than that looks washed out, but may be of some use with funky analog VGA signals. I'm certain that the brightness controls the backlight. When I briefly set it to 100% the power consumption increased by 28-30W, double the normal draw. In the standard calibrated modes aRGB, sRGB, EBU, REC709, SMPTE-C and DCI, each draw slightly different amounts of power. I'm using CAL1/CAL2 modes which use a bit less, perhaps due to the color temp or 100 cd/m2 brightness.

 

[time]

The contrast should normally be set to 100%.

That's nonsense, it depends entirely on the monitor. Most will start to wash out lighter colors when the contrast is set too high - better ones probably try to align this to 100% for a preset color profile.

I'm certain that the brightness controls the backlight.

I never said it didn't. However, if you display a black picture in a dark room, how low can you get the bleed by reducing the brightness? Most of the time, not low enough.

 

[Stereodude]

I guess my memory was bad. The "brightness" control on my 24" monitor adjusts backlight brightness, not anything with the way the LCD panel is driven.