Monitor questions for video/photo editing

[tinpanalley]

Hey all,
Basically, my Sony Multiscan E400 is showing signs of dying (red angled lines across the screen at all times). I use my monitor predominantly for video and photo editing. I don't need a pro display that costs thousands of dollars, but something that can properly handle blacks is CRUCIAL to me for my video editing and photography.
I have a Nvidia GeForce GTX 470 video card (specs here) so I have DVI, HDMI and I can go to a max digital res of 2560X1600.

Some questions:
- Aren't there any plasma monitors for computers?
- For my purposes, what are the main specs you think I need to look out for? I don't know a lot about monitor specs.
- Is it possible to get something for less than 300?
- Is there ANY monitor I can buy that will also function fine in Europe? I understand the power issue. Just find it weird that there is NO solution that works fine in both places.

Thanks all!

 

[trungma]

If blacks and contrast are crucial then I recommend a VA based LCD. The BenQ EW2420 is decently priced at around $200.

Here is Anandtech's review of the LCD.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4960/benq-ew2420-monitor-review

If color accuracy is important then look at some Dell E-IPS range of LCDs which are also decently priced but more than the LCD above at around $300.

Here is Anandtech's review of Dell's E-IPS LCD.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4880/dell-u2311h-affordable-eips/1

I don't believe I've ever seen a plasma computer monitor but there is no reason you couldn't buy a small regular 1080p plasma display and use it as a monitor.

Most mointor power input will accept 120V to 240V. In which case you'll just need a adapter for the european outlet.

 

[tinpanalley]

Thanks, that's an awesome summary. Are you saying that the BenQ isn't good for colour and that the Dell isn't good for black and white and contrasts? Or simply that those are highlights on each? If you had to pick one overall would you go with the Dell?

I need to read up on what VA means. I can't stand LCD screens. Very hard to edit black and white when my blacks shift just by tilting my head.

That's why I thought a small Plasma would be better. Way better contrast ratio. I suppose any small TV can double as a computer monitor?

 

[Stuka87]

I run dual Dell U2412M's (24" 1920x1200) and have been pretty happy with them. They are not perfect, but for the price they are great. I also own a ViewSonic 2365WB (23" 1920x1080) and its also pretty good for the price. And I feel it has better black levels than the Dell's. Although it has a slightly slower response time than some other IPS displays.

These are both e-IPS, so they will not be as good as an h2-IPS or the like. But there is a big price difference between them.

But overall I have been happy with both displays.

EDIT: VA = View Angle

 

[tinpanalley]

How do LEDs compare? Or maybe they don't even come close?

 

[Stuka87]

How do LEDs compare? Or maybe they don't even come close?

LED is just the back lighting. Just about every display these days has an LED backlight. For TV's, there are some that have RGB-LED backlights, which give more vibrant colors. Don't think I have seen a monitor with an RGB-LED backlight.

An IPS is going to give you the best black levels though for an LCD.

 

[LokutusofBorg]

When talking about LCD screens there are three types of panel: TN, VA, and IPS.

• TN are the cheapest to make, so they're very ubiquitous. They have poor color reproduction compared to the other two types, and they are the panels notorious for "graying out" when viewed from off angles. All the cheap monitors are TN panels, but TN is also the only one that they've been able to ramp up to 120Hz (and 240Hz) refresh rate, AFAIK. TN panels also have the fastest response times (input lag, as well as G2G color change [ghosting]) so twitch gamers swear by them.
• VA panels have very rich contrast (good blacks) and good colors, and are what most LCD TVs are (used to be?) made out of. There used to be a lot more computer monitors made with VA panels, but IPS has evolved and come down in price such that VA doesn't have much room in the monitor market anymore. VA also has the worst response times of the three panel types. They're great for rich colors, though, and some high-end monitors are still VA.
• IPS is the highest quality panel type, and is what Apple uses in their stuff, as well as what almost every high-end monitor has (Eizo, NEC, etc.). Higher end business laptops (Lenovo, HP) are typically IPS also. With IPS colors are rich, text is sharp, and viewing angle problems are non-existent. They're just the most expensive panel type to manufacture. Variations of IPS (e-IPS, h-IPS) have allowed the price to come down, and that's what most every IPS monitor under $1000 uses. I believe S-IPS is the golden standard, top of the line. IPS has respectable response times, not too far behind TN.

LED has nothing to do with the above (IE any of the above can be LED or not). LED simply refers to the type of back-lighting used. All monitors used to just use a couple fluorescent tubes (CCFL) almost exactly the same as what you see in a typical fluorescent light in an office or shop or whatever (only smaller, of course).

A few years ago they started using LEDs back there instead. The cheap way to do this is to just put LEDs all around the edge of the monitor. This can give uneven lighting across the panel, and does not allow the back-lighting to be used to enhance contrast. But it's cheap and it works.

Putting the LEDs into a matrix, however, gives even lighting across the back of the panel, and allows the LEDs to be locally dimmed to help enhance contrast not just with the LCDs on the panel but with the back-light. So the best LED models are a matrix, not edge-lit, and have separate RGB LEDs at each point, as Stuka mentioned. LEDs use a lot less power and generate a lot less heat than a CCFL backlight, which is another advantage (that applies to edge-lit or matrix).

Google some of these terms and spend a half hour reading Wikipedia articles and you'll be more educated on this stuff than the majority of people out there.

 

[tinpanalley]

Google some of these terms and spend a half hour reading Wikipedia articles and you'll be more educated on this stuff than the majority of people out there.

That's exactly what I plan to do. Just wanted to get a good starting of point. Thanks!

 

[Stuka87]

• VA panels have very rich contrast (good blacks) and good colors, and are what most LCD TVs are (used to be?) made out of. There used to be a lot more computer monitors made with VA panels, but IPS has evolved and come down in price such that VA doesn't have much room in the monitor market anymore. VA also has the worst response times of the three panel types. They're great for rich colors, though, and some high-end monitors are still VA.

I totally forgot about VA panels. I saw VA and view angle popped into my head.

 

[blastingcap]

If blacks and contrast are crucial then I recommend a VA based LCD. The BenQ EW2420 is decently priced at around $200.

Here is Anandtech's review of the LCD.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4960/benq-ew2420-monitor-review

If color accuracy is important then look at some Dell E-IPS range of LCDs which are also decently priced but more than the LCD above at around $300.

Here is Anandtech's review of Dell's E-IPS LCD.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4880/dell-u2311h-affordable-eips/1

I don't believe I've ever seen a plasma computer monitor but there is no reason you couldn't buy a small regular 1080p plasma display and use it as a monitor.

Most mointor power input will accept 120V to 240V. In which case you'll just need a adapter for the european outlet.

I agree with the above.

If blacks are that important to you, you will want a PVA panel. The cheapest one that can be recommended is probably the ASUS ML249H if you are okay with the non-standard mount that can't be rotated to portrait mode. I suspect the BenQ uses the same panel. And PVA panels have good color accuracy, just remember to calibrate them.

 

[tinpanalley]

By PVA, do you mean VA?

 

[LokutusofBorg]

For VA panels there is PVA and MVA. I don't really know the difference. VA is just a general way to refer to them.

 

[blastingcap]

By PVA, do you mean VA?

You may want to read this for a guide to panel technologies:

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/content/panel_technologies_content.htm

 

[tinpanalley]

Good idea, blastingcap. Thanks.

Any thoughts on this one, guys? http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-24236112-L01D

 

[tinpanalley]

And PVA panels have good color accuracy, just remember to calibrate them.

Does calibrating involve specific equipment or a DVD like the Avia calibration disc I use for my TV?

 

[tinpanalley]

Ok, I've looked at all the information you guys gave me and done tons of research.
Where MY needs are concerned, it appears that...

1. VA panels will have the right viewing angles and good blacks but may suffer in a small way in color fidelity. Better than TN, they don't quite match the quality of high end IPS but are a cost-friendly alternative.
2. IPS panels are best at 8-bit (don't know why that's better than 6 yet but it has to do with colour reproduction) which means you're either paying a premium price for an S-IPS panels or paying less for e-IPS which is definitely better than TN but at that point comparing e-IPS and MVA becomes harder because they're similar.

I've decided given all this info, that I can spend up to $400 in the hopes that it can get me something a bit better. But I'd like to keep it under that amount.
Again, I am primarily editing video and photographs where, to me, contrast and black fidelity and viewing angle are the most important thing. But I also need to have good response time for video editing. I can deal with colors being a bit off, but contrast and black levels are harder to compromise in my work. Other than that, lots of writing and just regular desktop stuff.

Does all of that sound correct?
Any new suggestions based on this new info?

 

[LokutusofBorg]

The Dell U2412M is nearly impossible to beat unless you require wide gamut. Stellar monitor.

 

[tinpanalley]

How about this? Have I done my research correctly?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/818913-REG/ASUS_PA238Q_PA238Q_23_LCD_Widescreen.html

 

[LokutusofBorg]

How about this? Have I done my research correctly?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/818913-REG/ASUS_PA238Q_PA238Q_23_LCD_Widescreen.html

I personally will never pay money for a 16:9 monitor. I use my monitors for productivity tasks, not watching movies. 16:10 is highly preferred. Lots of (other) people do like 16:9 just fine, though, so whatever floats your boat in that regard. Just be aware the PA238Q *is* a 1080p monitor.

There are reports of whine with the PA238Q (as well as the Dell U2312HM, which uses the same panel). Otherwise a quick cursory check of reviews for that Asus indicates it's an ok monitor.

 

[Stuka87]

I agree, the U2412M is your best bet. I have two of them and love them. its within your budget and has great view angle, and the color reproduction is quite good. Gamut isn't as good as some higher priced monitors.

A 16:9 display may be fine for you, but I really like the extra height. Especially if you are using Final Cut/AVID or Lightroom/Aperture. You may think its only 120 pixels, but it makes all the difference in the world.

 

[tinpanalley]

"Whine" - are you referring to some kind of buzz or hum from the monitor?
The reason I wasn't going with the DELL was that having HDMI was something I was hoping to have and so is a wide gamut.
Is there something you can recommend with a wider gamut and stillin 16:10?

Also, is there any place you recommend for buying online that has good return policies because sadly that Dell isn't available at the store I like to go to. This is also part of the reason I ignored the Dell. I'd hate to have to ship it back if anything was wrong with it.

 

[LokutusofBorg]

Yes, the whine is some kind of hum or buzz. I quickly googled PA238Q and looked at the thread on the [H]ard forum about the monitor and it's mentioned in there. I would suggest you find a good review or two to read before buying any specific monitor.

Dell is very good about returns. They pay shipping both ways. And if you know how to talk to a CS rep on the phone they will let you return a monitor (for exchange) for just about any reason. You're almost guaranteed to get a monitor you're pleased with, provided your expectations are reasonable.

If you are only going to be connecting your PC to your monitor there is *zero* reason to get one with HDMI. If you want to use your monitor as a TV also (game console, bluray player, or whatever) then HDMI would be good, and chances are you'll like a 16:9 aspect ratio just fine.

If you want wide gamut, HDMI, 16:10 and IPS then there is the Dell U2410. It's more expensive than the U2412M but it's for those reasons (more connections, wide gamut, etc.). HP has some comparable monitors that are worth looking at if you're stepping up to those specs. There are also one or two VA monitors still being sold that would be worth considering also, if you want really good blacks/colors for your photo editing, etc.

I'm sorry, I'm a bit of a one-trick pony, but for years now I have bought nothing but Dell for monitors. Every time I go to buy new monitors for myself or family members, I always shop around and weigh all the options (I'm very OCD about researching stuff I buy) but I always end up buying Dell. In the past I have bought BenQ and Samsung monitors, but as the market has tightened Dell has simply risen to the top in value/dollar.

 

[tinpanalley]

Now you've got me thinking about VAs again like this one that I almost chose: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/788294-REG/ASUS_ML249H_ML249H_24_MVA_Widescreen.html
Any thoughts on this?

Here's the bottom line for me, considering filmmaking and photo editing are the primary tasks of importance I use my computer for (for gaming, writing, productivity, etc. the monitor doesn't matter to me)
1. I can't be moving my head left and right wondering if I'm getting the right image because of viewing angle. That will drive me nuts.
2. I don't need to know I'm getting a true 100% pure red, but I have to know with absolute certainty that my blacks are black, and that my exposure and contrast levels in my scenes are exactly what I intended without having to transfer to my television to make sure everything looks right before mastering.
3. 16:9 isn't a MUST for me but I won't pay 100 dollars more JUST to get 16:10. I only wanted HDMI cause I want the option, it's not a deal breaker. Just a bonus that I thought might be nice.

Do you think there's something better for me in this case? I started out thinking VAs were more suited to me. And don't worry I read LOTS of reviews and am just as OCD as you.
Thanks!

 

[velis]

From what you said in this thread you're obviously not doing this professionally. I have no idea why blacks are so important to you nor why your eyes are so sensitive that you see shifts in black levels just by tilting your head a little so I won't even go there.
That said, I used to have a MVA display (Samsung 215TW) and I currently have an IPS display (Dell U2711). Both had great colors, non-calibrated samsung was better than Dell, but I can't really notice much difference after calibration.
However, putting any of the monitors in pivot mode (before anyone comes at me for this - I have the dell on a custom stand), even I can see a slight shift in color hue / saturation. I'm not so sure about the samsung any more (it died last year), but for the dell it's definitely there ever so slight.

You should know that any LCD will shift colors when tilting. It's a property of the panel retarder (I think), not LCD type. Also LED backlight will mess with your colors unless you go with HP's DreamColor (RGB LED) monitor, but that one is $2000 - you can get it much cheaper in a laptop though (whole Elitebook laptop can be less than $2000).

So unless you plan on putting up with a bit of color shifting, you really should look into plasmas again, though they are pretty limited in size (only >40"). There are also still enough of CRTs on ebay.

If I had to choose between the monitors you linked, I'd go with the IPS one. The other one looks like a wannabe TV which will almost surely mean the focus was on functionality, not quality.

 

[cantholdanymore]

2. I don't need to know I'm getting a true 100% pure red, but I have to know with absolute certainty that my blacks are black, and that my exposure and contrast levels in my scenes are exactly what I intended without having to transfer to my television to make sure everything looks right before mastering.

When talking about monitors not having deep black, it is usually in absolute terms, not compared to other types of display. For photo PRINTING this is crucial since the final print is a reflective material. Now for video editing I don't really know but I doubt black levels are WORST in a computer monitor than in a modern day TV.