LCD wide monitor, worth it?

Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by Abrams, Nov 23, 2008.

  1. nutyo

    nutyo Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,589
    Likes Received:
    1
    GPU:
    Sapphire Vapor-X HD5870
    Wow, I'm sorry I even wasted my time. No those numbers aren't technical enough for me. I'd be far more interested to see the cd/m2 measurements on white and black levels. I'm sorry I didn't realise that you had based your opinion of your monitor on the manufacturing specs. If so fair enough. I thought you had actual measurement to go by but apparently not. In any case it is all a moot point. After repeatedly telling you that I am not even discussing the difference between PVA and IPS monitors. You can't seem to let it go. All you seem to be doing is defending your monitor based on information that isn't relevant to the thread in any ways shape or form. You have the best 24" screen ever made.

    LCD technology cannot produce black levels that compare to CRTs. Affordable LCDs don't produce uniform colour and cover less colour range that a similarly priced CRT. Those are reasons why I hope OLED and SED ramp up quicker. Although I have heard of per-pixel backlit LCDs which clear up an backlight issues. Problem is their price is comparable to OLED displays.

    Does anyone know if they will ever bring 120Hz panels to computer monitors? That'd be quite nice.
     
  2. LedHed

    LedHed Banned

    Messages:
    6,827
    Likes Received:
    1
    GPU:
    BenQ FP241W
    You can at least argue against the correct panel, it's a P-MVA. Also that isn't manufactures specs only on the BenQ, just the NEC. Would you like to provide some reason why NEC website is unreliable in listing their own monitors specs? How would you like me to take measurements? Do I need to go spend a few grand on test equipment to make you feel satisfied?

    http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/benq_fp241w.htm
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2008
  3. Colt M4

    Colt M4 Master Guru

    Messages:
    855
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Evga GTX 970 SC Sli
    Color has nothing to do with the refresh rate. 60hz compared to 120hz only matters when you are playing 24p content because of the pulldown with 60hz. You just have to get a high quality panel. I am pretty sure with the sony's all the W,Z and XBR series are IPS because they are 120hz and the Samsung A650 and above(excluding the 32in) are 120hz and most likely 120hz not sure about other brands. Its the Contrast ratio that matters as you already probalby know. Not sure about actual computer monitors that are 120hz but all LCD tvs are basically Computer Monitors just make sure the response time is better than 8ms or its going to be really bad.
     
  4. nutyo

    nutyo Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,589
    Likes Received:
    1
    GPU:
    Sapphire Vapor-X HD5870
    Yes sorry, you are correct, I meant the MVA. The information that the manufacturers give are for your average consumer that need simple numbers to compare. They don't portray an accurate picture of the quality of a panel in the least. Much like dynamic contrast figure are BS so is, although to a lesser extent, other numbers. It is also the way you interpret the number.

    Take for example. Vid Card manufacturing specs.

    HD4670 1GB
    Core Clock Speed: 750
    Mem Clock Speed: 2000MHz

    GeForce 9800GTX 512M
    Core Clock Speed: 675Mhz
    Mem Clock Speed: 1100MHz

    Now from those specs, it'd be hard to explain to someone who didn't know about graphics cards why the 9800GTX is a far superior performer. I mean the 4670 has more RAM that is faster and faster core clock speed. No competition right. However real world test will show you without a doubt the true nature of each product. It isn't something a manufacturer is going to tell you. It is information an enthusiast finds out themselves. Now is it so hard to believe that manufacturers specs, within reason, mean diddly squat.

    Now brightness figures on monitors are similar to Mem size on VGAs. Just as a 1GB card isn't necessarily better than a 512MB one a 500cd/m2 monitor isn't necessarily better that a 400cd/m2. What matters more than how bright the backlight can get is how uniformly it distributes its brightness and how little impact it has on the washing out of colours. I mean look at how you are using your own monitor. Are you running it at max brightness? I sure am not. In fact after calibration, I am running my monitor at 119cd/m2. In general 100-110cd/m2 on CRTs and 120-130cd/m2 on LCDs are what 90% of people are going to be comfortable with. You can then see how silly the manufacturers 400-500cd/m2 quote is. I mean, it becomes totally irrelevant.

    Contrast ratios are a PHD topic in of themselves. Manufacturers don't measure it in the same way as each other. They also provide no information on how the contrast changes over different levels of brightness nor the degree of variance across the screen. Actually wiki gives a very basic skim, better than I could do without getting bogged down in detail.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrast_ratio

    At the current settings on my screen for example. I measured 0.17cd/m2 at what was supposed to be black. And 119cd/m2 at white. 119/0.17 gives me a contrast ratio of 700:1. Lower than NECs quoted 800:1. Who knows what settings they had the monitor at when they go that value. Truth be told not even that gives you a good picture of what you will perceive as everyday contrast. Why? Because even my measurements were taken when a large portion of the screen was a single shade (black or white). When in reality contrast is when you have black and white next to each other. You wouldn't believe the amount of pixel bleed some monitors have then. Where the white pixel completely destroys the black pixel next to it. So even if a monitor has good absolute black and white values, providing the manufacturer with a nice, appealing, big contrast ratio when you look at the screen in everyday use it may look like rubbish because of pixel bleeding. And this doesn't even touch on the concept of contrast at different colours. It quickly become clear that it is guess work at best to try and judge a monitor's true contrast capabilities by using the single number given by a manufacturer produced by unknown means.

    While it is really difficult in today's age of internet shopping, when it comes to monitors, try before you buy or you'll have no idea what you are really getting.

    I've run out of time but similar issues crop up when comparing response rates as well, though not to the same degree as contrast. If you want to know any more or if anything wasn't clear just ask.
     

  5. UnclePappi

    UnclePappi Banned

    Messages:
    5,086
    Likes Received:
    1
    GPU:
    Asus 680 2gb 1250mhz
    That's why we need 3rd party ANSI contrast measurements. From what I hear the best ANSI contrast are CRT and nice Plasma screens with just a few of the newer LCD's being competitive.
     

Share This Page