L226WTX Performance

[Hemsky]

Hi all

Just thought I'd drop by and give me opinion of the new 22" LG I've purchased.

Overall its great. The high contrast ratio and the low response time is great and I couldn't ask for more when it comes to a monitor.

However there are a few issues I've had with this particular unit.

First and foremost was the lack of uniform digital connection that is available with this monitor. I was left with a 0-pin DVI connection for digital while my video card supports up to 4 pin. I had purchased a DVI with the 4 pin DVI because I thought they were uniform, unfortunately this is not the case and I must find myself a digital cable that is compatible with the connection that is supported on this monitor.

Besides this I find my eVGA 8800gtx KO ACS3 struggling with supreme commander in dual monitor set up. I am running 1680x1050 on my main (22" and 1048x960 on 2nd) and it lags with the radar on the other monitor. Not sure if this is optimized or just pushing this card to the limits. Makes me wonder if I should buy another 8800 to supplement it.

I couldn't be happier with this monitor. Side by side I can totally tell the difference between a 3 year old monitor and a new series with a high contrast ratio and a low response time. Definately one of the best monitors i've purchased.

Only thing I have an issue is with the bleeding at the left/right and top/bottom of the monitor. things such as lighter areas in those respective areas make me wonder if this is a bad unit and should replace or if this is normal. It doesn't affect me in game or in AutoCAD/CS2 so not sure if its worth the bother.

 

[Matt2]

Sounds like backlight bleeding. Totally up to you if it's worth the exchange or not.

Congrats on the purchase!

 

[Hemsky]

well, its either 1 week to get a new one as the same model or put up with it. quite frankly, I have a high tolerance to defects as im sitll using my 8800gtx KO ac3 even though i get extremely weird sounds while using it

 

[mercanucaribe]

Return it and buy that 8 bit Acer 20" for $250.

 

[xtknight]

Don't bother returning unless it's work-impeding. Your exchange unit could have more bleeding. I got an L226WT today and the bleeding was present but minimal and non-serious. It could have been a lot worse.

 

[BernardP]

Originally posted by: xtknight
I got an L226WT today and the bleeding was present but minimal and non-serious. It could have been a lot worse.

As you are a "resident expert" on the subject of LCD monitors, I would be most interested to read your comments about this monitor. Specific areas of interest to me are:

--- Vertical viewing angles. I have seen the monitor in stores and it seems better than others in that respect.

--- Scaling at lower-than-native resolutions: Can it do 1280x800 (true 16:10) or at worse, 1280x768?

--- Image quality when playing Divx videos at low or mid resolution in full-screen mode. The kind of video that takes 700MB for a 2-hour movie, for example

Will you be posting a review on lcdresource.com?

Hemsky, your comments on these matters are also most welcome.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: BernardP
As you are a "resident expert" on the subject of LCD monitors, I would be most interested to read your comments about this monitor. Specific areas of interest to me are:

--- Vertical viewing angles. I have seen the monitor in stores and it seems better than others in that respect.

This was the most annoying part of the L226WT, for me. Just a little movement of my head and the image would change quite significantly in a couple spots. It's especially troublesome on dark scenes. This is what would keep me away from replacing an S-IPS with a TN. Due to the way the TN technology is made, any movement of your eyes will cause a change in the screen because you are looking at the crystals from a different direction. If you move your head, there will be a more noticeable change in the image.

I still notice something "odd" about the LG when I have the S-IPS NEC next to it. It has dark/swallowing/impure feel to it (most noticeable on a white screen). While the white can actually look more natural than the NEC at times, it isn't very uniform. I notice this on all TNs so I've little doubt it's due to uniformity or viewing angle problems. The compensation (viewing angle-improving) film they use in modern TNs (such as the L226WT) helps mask the effect greatly, but just use an old laptop without the film and you'll see what I mean. The whole screen is practically different no matter where you look at it. The film can only approximate the ideal crystal arrangement. MVA screens offer a much more stable screen, and IPS panels are near perfect until you're substantially off-axis.

--- Scaling at lower-than-native resolutions: Can it do 1280x800 (true 16:10) or at worse, 1280x768?

I will check that out later today.

--- Image quality when playing Divx videos at low or mid resolution in full-screen mode. The kind of video that takes 700MB for a 2-hour movie, for example

I don't have any DivX videos around but MPEG-4 H.264 and MPEG2-TS looked just fine on it. I thought my NEC was better at capturing the whole tone of the scene (slight hues were more visible where the LG was a relative mix-match at times). From the small amount of video testing I did with it, the LG seemed to have more noise visible in dark areas and a slightly worse problem with gradation. The only thing that popped out at me was the issue I mentioned above about subtle hues.

What I did notice was that the LG sometimes appeared oversaturated and clipped the details of some intense tones. Oversaturated is better than undersaturated, I suppose. The LG required a higher rating of brightness to reach the same detail that the NEC could.

Will you be posting a review on lcdresource.com?

I hope to, yes. Though it will probably just be a recap of what I posted in my LCD thread about this LCD (browse the last couple pages).

 

[BernardP]

Thanks xtknight for your reply. I also read you other post in the Buyers Guide Thread.

I see it seems impossible to get rid of image instability caused by TN panels' limited vision angles. Still, your overall impression is favorable.

I am looking forward to your report on the way this monitor scales at lower resolutions.

 

[xtknight]

Yes, it's quite a nice LCD. It seems to scale very well, actually. It's still digital so you get a couple artifacts but I think I could use 1280x768 on it (ATI/NVIDIA scaling, though). The monitor itself had what I'd call superior (to other LCDs) scaling...definitely above average in that aspect, but it's not like a CRT. Scaling of 1440x1050 or 1440x900 wasn't very good. The ~widescreen 1200x700~1300x800 resolutions looked the best, by far.

Here are the resolutions the monitor DSP can interpolate. The video card should be able to do any, theoretically. I preferred the monitor's scaling most of the time, when it was available. From my photographic memory I can tell you that the LG scaled better than the 20WMGX2.

Standard timings supported
640 x 480 at 60Hz - IBM VGA
640 x 480 at 75Hz - VESA
720 x 400 at 70Hz - IBM VGA
800 x 600 at 56Hz - VESA
800 x 600 at 60Hz - VESA
800 x 600 at 75Hz - VESA
832 x 624 at 75Hz - Mac II
1024 x 768 at 60Hz - VESA
1024 x 768 at 75Hz - VESA
1152 x 864 at 75Hz - VESA
1152 x 870 at 75Hz - Mac II
1280 x 960 at 60Hz - VESA
1280 x 1024 at 60Hz - VESA
1280 x 1024 at 75Hz - VESA
1440 x 1440 at 60Hz - VESA
1440 x 1440 at 75Hz - VESA
1680 x 1050 at 60Hz - LGE

 

[BernardP]

Originally posted by: xtknight
It seems to scale very well, actually. It's still digital so you get a couple artifacts but I think I could use 1280x768 on it (ATI/NVIDIA scaling, though).

So you mean that 1280x768 has to be scaled in the videocard, not in monitor hardware? Tt is (was?) my understanding that only NVidia allows for this, not ATI.

Originally posted by: xtknight
The monitor itself had what I'd call superior (to other LCDs) scaling...definitely above average in that aspect, but it's not like a CRT. Scaling of 1440x1050 or 1440x900 wasn't very good. The ~widescreen 1200x700~1300x800 resolutions looked the best, by far.

Do you mean more-or-less anything between 1200x700 and 1300x800 can be scaled in monitor hardware (not in videocard) with good results? This is exactly the range I would have to work in (because of myopic/presbyopic eyes). Have you specifically tried 1200x800 and 1280x768? From your comments above, I got the impression that 1280x768 requires videocard scaling, so I am a bit confused.

Originally posted by: xtknight
Here are the resolutions the monitor DSP can interpolate. The video card should be able to do any, theoretically. I preferred the monitor's scaling most of the time, when it was available. From my photographic memory I can tell you that the LG scaled better than the 20WMGX2.

Standard timings supported
640 x 480 at 60Hz - IBM VGA
640 x 480 at 75Hz - VESA
720 x 400 at 70Hz - IBM VGA
800 x 600 at 56Hz - VESA
800 x 600 at 60Hz - VESA
800 x 600 at 75Hz - VESA
832 x 624 at 75Hz - Mac II
1024 x 768 at 60Hz - VESA
1024 x 768 at 75Hz - VESA
1152 x 864 at 75Hz - VESA
1152 x 870 at 75Hz - Mac II
1280 x 960 at 60Hz - VESA
1280 x 1024 at 60Hz - VESA
1280 x 1024 at 75Hz - VESA
1440 x 1440 at 60Hz - VESA
1440 x 1440 at 75Hz - VESA
1680 x 1050 at 60Hz - LGE

Like always in the world of widescreen monitors, all the lower-than-native supported resolutions are not 16:10, so basically useless when one wants to maintain aspect ratio. Why do I have the impression that manufacturers are too lazy to implement DSP's specifically suited to widescreen monitors? It's so much easier to tell users to only use the native resolution.

Still, I am glad to know that this monitor scales better than average, as it is an important feature for me.

Thank you xtknight for taking the time to answer my questions.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: BernardP

Originally posted by: xtknight
It seems to scale very well, actually. It's still digital so you get a couple artifacts but I think I could use 1280x768 on it (ATI/NVIDIA scaling, though).

So you mean that 1280x768 has to be scaled in the videocard, not in monitor hardware? Tt is (was?) my understanding that only NVidia allows for this, not ATI.

ATI allows scaling and centered mode (well at least my Radeon 8500 does). I know it never allows fixed aspect scaling. I say, if you want to drive an LCD, get an NVIDIA card. They have a much better control set for LCDs. You can choose fixed aspect ratio scaling, centered mode, monitor scaling, or video card scaling. ATI's control panel consisted of "regular"(?) scaling and "centered timings" with no indication if the video card or monitor was doing it. I've heard that it varies per card with ATI and beyond that I have absolutely no idea. Not a fan of ATI for using LCDs though.

Just to clarify things, the monitor was originally hooked up to my dad's ATI (Radeon 8500) PC but he also had an NVIDIA 7600GT I used to test stuff. I didn't see much difference between the two video card companies' scaling.

Originally posted by: xtknight
The monitor itself had what I'd call superior (to other LCDs) scaling...definitely above average in that aspect, but it's not like a CRT. Scaling of 1440x1050 or 1440x900 wasn't very good. The ~widescreen 1200x700~1300x800 resolutions looked the best, by far.

Do you mean more-or-less anything between 1200x700 and 1300x800 can be scaled in monitor hardware (not in videocard) with good results? This is exactly the range I would have to work in (because of myopic/presbyopic eyes). Have you specifically tried 1200x800 and 1280x768? From your comments above, I got the impression that 1280x768 requires videocard scaling, so I am a bit confused.

With *any* scaling, actually. Use a resolution in that range and you're bound to get consistently good results. Anything lower or higher doesn't seem to produce results as good. I tried 1280x800 and 1280x768 on the NVIDIA card and didn't notice much difference at all. Both looked quite acceptable for most users.

I could certainly use either of them if I had to. I would rather use the native resolution and a high DPI setting (or sit closer) although as I understand Windows' DPI scaling isn't stellar. That's a matter of personal preference. If you're sitting farther back it's hard to notice scaling artifacts at all in which case I may rather use a lower resolution than DPI scaling.

Originally posted by: xtknight
Here are the resolutions the monitor DSP can interpolate. The video card should be able to do any, theoretically. I preferred the monitor's scaling most of the time, when it was available. From my photographic memory I can tell you that the LG scaled better than the 20WMGX2.

Standard timings supported
640 x 480 at 60Hz - IBM VGA
640 x 480 at 75Hz - VESA
720 x 400 at 70Hz - IBM VGA
800 x 600 at 56Hz - VESA
800 x 600 at 60Hz - VESA
800 x 600 at 75Hz - VESA
832 x 624 at 75Hz - Mac II
1024 x 768 at 60Hz - VESA
1024 x 768 at 75Hz - VESA
1152 x 864 at 75Hz - VESA
1152 x 870 at 75Hz - Mac II
1280 x 960 at 60Hz - VESA
1280 x 1024 at 60Hz - VESA
1280 x 1024 at 75Hz - VESA
1440 x 1440 at 60Hz - VESA
1440 x 1440 at 75Hz - VESA
1680 x 1050 at 60Hz - LGE

Like always in the world of widescreen monitors, all the lower-than-native supported resolutions are not 16:10, so basically useless when one wants to maintain aspect ratio. Why do I have the impression that manufacturers are too lazy to implement DSP's specifically suited to widescreen monitors? It's so much easier to tell users to only use the native resolution.

They figure it's the video card's job, I guess. In fact, NVIDIA cards even have the capability to do dithering if the LCD can't.

Still, I am glad to know that this monitor scales better than average, as it is an important feature for me.

Thank you xtknight for taking the time to answer my questions.

As far as I know, the L226WT uses a newer generation Genesis DSP. Any LCD with this chip should produce pretty good results. Genesis are the flagship of DSPs. The other DSPs come from rather small/unknown companies.

For someone like you maybe a dual 19 inch (huge dot pitch) setup would be better (but only if you could stand to use native resolution). Scaling on my VP930b doesn't look nearly as good.

From what I hear, Vista can have better DPI scaling due to its Avalon window API. That is, if apps take advantage of it. Apparently none or few do.

Bottom line is though, no matter how many details I can give you that won't make your decision. I recommend you give it a try. You could be a lot less particular than I, or a lot more particular.

Out of curiosity, what is your current video card/monitor/resolution/DPI setup?

 

[BernardP]

Thanks again xtknight. You have answered all my added questions and even more. The info about the Genesis DSP is very interesting.

On my home computer I am running NVidia 6150 integrated graphics @ 800x600 on a 17-inch Viewsonic PF775. I had really spoiled myself when I bought that for $550 seven years ago...(!) The damn thing is still running like new.

I am unable to use this monitor at 1024x768, as I have to sit uncomfortably close to see anything. But 800x600, although fine at the turn of the millenium, is getting really confining.

At work, I have a 19-inch Dell 1907FP (TN panel) set at 1024x768 and I can sit 20-24 inches from it.

In both cases I am using standard-sized icons and 96 DPI. I have experimented with scaling and it is never satisfactory. For example, too many web pages seem to be hard-coded and won't scale (like this forum).

The best compromise for me is playing with monitor resolution. This is why I am asking such detailed questions about scaling at lower resolutions. I figure a 22-inch monitor @ 1280x800 will be OK, as it would have a pixel density just slightly higher than my work setup. Here is how things compare:

http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/5927/resolutionsvq6.jpg

I think the LG226 would be a noticeable improvement from my 17-inch CRT

I could go 24-inch and get a better panel in the bargain, but I feel this would be throwing money away as I would set it to 1280x800 anyway. A 24-incher would simply allow me to sit a bit farther away. A 24-inch monitor sells for about twice the price of a 22-inch one, and with both at the same resolution, I would be basically paying only for the better viewing angles, although I find my Dell monitor somewhat annoying in that respect.

Now that you have confirmed that the L226WT scales well at the resolution I want to use, it is likely I will pick one up when FutureShop puts it on sale. I have 15 days to return it no-questions-asked, so this would give me enough time to sort out the viewing angle question.