[Retired] The LCD Thread

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Aflac
Any thoughts on the Acer AL2223WD? I've been looking at widescreen 22"s lately and I thought I had settled on the LG L226WT, but the combination of the light bleeding complaints on the latter and the very very low price on the former has made me reconsider. Are the differences with a $150 price difference?

I would have really liked the Samsung 226BW but the panel lottery has made the monitor quite unsatisfactory.

Value is in the eye of the beholder, so I can't tell you if it's worth it or not.

It would be worth it for me to spend $150 more to get something I like, versus spending $150 and getting something I don't. So, I would get the LG L226WT.

The Acer oughta have just as much backlight bleeding, if not more, than the LG.

 

[ShinMech]

Originally posted by: xtknightThe 24WMGX2 isn't even out yet. You want ones bigger than 24" that are OK for gaming? Probably the Dell 2707WFP and NEC LCD2690WUxi. Slim pickens in that category though. There haven't been too many monitors that size that have been reviewed (or at least ones at affordable prices). The HP LP3065 and Dell 3007WFP aren't too bad, either.

Woops, I meant the 20WMGX2.

Again, thanks for your input.

Looks like I'll wait for the upcoming 24WMGX2 and see if it's up to par with the 20WMGX2.

 

[Low Radiation]

I've purchased lg l204wt and it's perfect for me in almost any aspect - so thanx for everything. Contrast and response time are really good. I have no dead pixels and just the slightest backlight bleed on top. When i sum it up, im very satisfied.
As i said, i have very sensitive eyes, so i'm playing with settings now (i don't have a calibrator and can't buy one at the moment) and i want to find something that's best for me. When i select SRGB profile, i cannot change contrast and gamma setting, is that normal?

xtknight, do you have any settings to recommend? Ok you have 226, but i'msure you have some guide for me

I would like to hae some device to measure actual brightness of the screen, i'd really like to know how high in nits is this...

And i'm just thinking as i can still replace monitor if it's too bright for me, alternative would probably be HP lp2065.

Can you tell me to which number on your dark detail test scale would it come UNCALIBRATED?

thank you

 

[Cookie Monster]

Xtknight, is there a reason why the HP LP2065 isnt in the multimedia section?

 

[mikuto]

Originally posted by: soltys
NEC 20WGX2 Pro, produced march 2007, iirc - don't remember where I found this info.

For what it's worth, it sounds like the exact same thing I noticed on my 20WGX2 Pro. I don't have any dead ones (portions of subpixels that are dark when they should be lit), but I do have several that are stuck (bright when they should be dark). None of them is bothersome; for one thing, only a tiny part of the subpixel is stuck - the biggest one is like one third of the subpixel surface, and that's the one that is easier to spot on a black background; also, the fact that the rest of the subpixel actually works fine overshadows the defect during normal use - I can't spot any of them on a 'normal' screen, unless I use a magnifying glass and start off knowing exactly where they are . The more you look for them, the more you'll find - a 2x magnifying glass on a black screen reveals scores of such very very tiny defects on my panel; as long as they don't grow significantly in either numbers or size over time, I'm not going to worry about them.

Anyway, two people reporting on the Pro model so far, and both mention the same issue; makes you wonder...

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
Xtknight, is there a reason why the HP LP2065 isnt in the multimedia section?

The HP LP2065 isn't as fast as the other monitors listed in Multimedia, but it probably is the best 20.1" 4:3 for multimedia purposes. It's also very generic (it doesn't have any extra inputs or any color features that some multimedia people like [Samsung MagicBright, LG f-Engine] and even I find those useful at times for particular media). It's also not a very bright display to begin with compared to any of the others in Multimedia.

Originally posted by: Low Radiation
I've purchased lg l204wt and it's perfect for me in almost any aspect - so thanx for everything. Contrast and response time are really good. I have no dead pixels and just the slightest backlight bleed on top. When i sum it up, im very satisfied.
As i said, i have very sensitive eyes, so i'm playing with settings now (i don't have a calibrator and can't buy one at the moment) and i want to find something that's best for me. When i select SRGB profile, i cannot change contrast and gamma setting, is that normal?

That's normal. SRGB is a preset for the contrast and gamma.

xtknight, do you have any settings to recommend? Ok you have 226, but i'msure you have some guide for me

Hmm well you can check the articles on my site.

After Getting your LCD

Tweaking your LCD

I would like to hae some device to measure actual brightness of the screen, i'd really like to know how high in nits is this...

Probably around 160 nits at average settings but I don't know. The device you're speaking of is called a colorimeter (~$150 for a good one).

And i'm just thinking as i can still replace monitor if it's too bright for me, alternative would probably be HP lp2065.

Can you tell me to which number on your dark detail test scale would it come UNCALIBRATED?

thank you

The LP2065? Probably to 13 or so. So, not great uncalibrated. How far can you see on your L204WT on the black level test?

 

[xtknight]

I came across the first noticeable burn-in today on my 20WGX2. Very, very subtle and hard to spot, but it's there and it doesn't take long. Just thought that was interesting as I'd never seen it before, though others have seen it on brand new units. It is totally nonintrusive on mine. It's amazing I spotted it in the first place. It happened when I had a white window next to a very intense dark gray. The white remained in place for about a minute but was only about (1/255 or less due to physical properties) bright.

 

[Low Radiation]

The LP2065? Probably to 13 or so. So, not great uncalibrated. How far can you see on your L204WT on the black level test?

That means that you see only last 2? That's pretty bad. And how is it possible to fix that without getting everything else washed out? How does a calibrator do that?

On my LG, with gamma value at 0, i can see it all the way down to 4. Of course, when i adjust gamma i can see them all, but then everything else looks washed out. So, it's much better than HP in that test.

But still, if my eyes start tu hurt with LG, i'll have to get HP , which is very easy on the eyes, as everybody said.

 

[Compellor]

Originally posted by: Aflac
Any thoughts on the Acer AL2223WD? I've been looking at widescreen 22"s lately and I thought I had settled on the LG L226WT, but the combination of the light bleeding complaints on the latter and the very very low price on the former has made me reconsider. Are the differences with a $150 price difference?

I bought one of these from Best Buy and it does show some bleeding at the bottom right of the screen but is tolerable given the price I paid. The top and sides do not show any bleeding. This panel does exhibit some uneven brightness but it's not that noticeable. YMMV. Biggest drawback to this panel is the vertical viewing angle. Looking at it straight on it's just slightly darker near the top of the screen. But most TN panels have this problem to some degree.

Some positives of this monitor are decent contrast ratio, accurate color rendering out of the box when set to Warm, and sharp text. Gaming is really good and I've seen no ghosting. DVDs look really good and show a lot of detail.

FWIW, my Viewsonic VP930b puts this panel to shame but I paid a lot more money for it. It's too bad Viewsonic doesn't produce a 22" monitor using the same panel as the VP930b. I'd buy one in a heartbeat.

 

[arcarsenal]

Originally posted by: xtknight

Originally posted by: Low Radiation
So you say that lg l204wt is easier on the eyes than 206bw>?

I'd believe that to be the case, however I have never used either. LG's TN panels tend to be of better quality.

I couldn't really notice a difference, however, maybe because both of the panel versions I got were CPT.

I've experimented with the magicbright setting on the 206bw, it makes quite an improvement. I'd still like calibrate the monitor using the available tools though.

Xt, I believe it's the software which is limiting the performance of the monitor text wise, because on a 20.1" mac screen running OSX, the text looks stunning.

Can you recommend any linux distributions which are similar to XP in ease of use? I'd like to see what difference it makes.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: arcarsenal

Originally posted by: xtknight

Originally posted by: Low Radiation
So you say that lg l204wt is easier on the eyes than 206bw>?

I'd believe that to be the case, however I have never used either. LG's TN panels tend to be of better quality.

I couldn't really notice a difference, however, maybe because both of the panel versions I got were CPT.

I've experimented with the magicbright setting on the 206bw, it makes quite an improvement. I'd still like calibrate the monitor using the available tools though.

Xt, I believe it's the software which is limiting the performance of the monitor text wise, because on a 20.1" mac screen running OSX, the text looks stunning.

Can you recommend any linux distributions which are similar to XP in ease of use? I'd like to see what difference it makes.

You can see, here:

Ubuntu/Firefox2/subpixel hinting: http://xtknight.atothosting.com/images/ubu_ff_lcd.png
WXP/Firefox2/normal: http://xtknight.atothosting.com/images/wxp_ff_def.png
WXP/Firefox2/ClearType (gamma 1.2): http://xtknight.atothosting.com/images/wxp_ff_ct.png

Open them all in new windows, expand the image to full size, and alt-tab through the windows. Particularly in "Normal" (as opposed to "Bold"), the Linux rendering looks more crisp with less artifacts. ClearType looks so blurry I don't think I could stand to use it.

Ubuntu 7.04 is the best Linux IMO.

 

[everman]

I understand that a 22" lcd with the right resolution is large enough to display 2 full A4 size pages plus a bit extra room to spare. Does anyone know what resolution this is exactly? And what would be a good lcd for this? It will be used primarily for office type work, heavy reading and typing, no gaming or movies.

 

[shilatoe]

I just got the NEC LCD2470WNX. I'm just messing with the controls and settings right now b/c I'm waiting for my new computer to come in next week before I get serious about the optimal monitor settings. I did run the tests xtknight recommends for a new monitor and it checks out great. Now my question:

There are a number of different settings easily accessed by the OSM but I don't understand the difference between "Native" and sRGB. The sRGB setting is identified as 6500 deg Kelvin while Native does not have a temp. identifier. Anyway, which would be expected to provide more true color or do I have to do colorimeter testing to differentiate between the two?

Once I have my total system up and running I want to give a report of the monitor performance but don't want to get into it wo/all the hardware/software in place.

Anyway, any help on understanding the distinction between Native an sRGB will be appreciated.
Thanks,

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Low Radiation

The LP2065? Probably to 13 or so. So, not great uncalibrated. How far can you see on your L204WT on the black level test?

That means that you see only last 2? That's pretty bad. And how is it possible to fix that without getting everything else washed out? How does a calibrator do that?

Yup, that's what I mean. It's not that bad, certainly not worse than most LCDs. You're only missing 5.5% of the color scale.

The colorimeter? Well it just generates a new gamma table and makes the best out of what you have. It can't defy gravity, but it can make most of your colors look better and it does a good job of that almost all the time.

On my LG, with gamma value at 0, i can see it all the way down to 4. Of course, when i adjust gamma i can see them all, but then everything else looks washed out. So, it's much better than HP in that test.

That gamma adjustment is too coarse to do anything good.

But still, if my eyes start tu hurt with LG, i'll have to get HP , which is very easy on the eyes, as everybody said.

Sounds good to me.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: everman
I understand that a 22" lcd with the right resolution is large enough to display 2 full A4 size pages plus a bit extra room to spare. Does anyone know what resolution this is exactly? And what would be a good lcd for this? It will be used primarily for office type work, heavy reading and typing, no gaming or movies.

2 A4 size pages is pretty a broad description, but that is what 24" monitors are touted as being able to display, and they have a resolution of 1920x1200. The BenQ FP241W is a great 24" display. Likewise, the LG L226WT is a good 22". You could display two A4 pages on 1680x1050 if you reduce the font size a little, or maybe you can see them just barely.

Originally posted by: shilatoe
I just got the NEC LCD2470WNX. I'm just messing with the controls and settings right now b/c I'm waiting for my new computer to come in next week before I get serious about the optimal monitor settings. I did run the tests xtknight recommends for a new monitor and it checks out great. Now my question:

There are a number of different settings easily accessed by the OSM but I don't understand the difference between "Native" and sRGB. The sRGB setting is identified as 6500 deg Kelvin while Native does not have a temp. identifier. Anyway, which would be expected to provide more true color or do I have to do colorimeter testing to differentiate between the two?

"Native" means whatever the LCD panel displays by default. It usually ends up being somewhere around 5500-7500. My 20WMGX2's native is 6400-6600 depending on the brightness which is just about perfect for me. Using "Native" ensures that you are not losing any colors, that's what it's the best for calibration because you know that the monitor is showing 100% of what it can. When you select sRGB, the monitor may have to sacrifice a couple colors to make the rest look good. But with that, you're losing gamut (total maximum number of colors), so it's not as good for calibration. After you calibrate you're already losing colors at the user's end of things, so you may as well cut your losses by using Native and making sure the monitor side is 100%.

Once I have my total system up and running I want to give a report of the monitor performance but don't want to get into it wo/all the hardware/software in place.

Anyway, any help on understanding the distinction between Native an sRGB will be appreciated.Thanks,

Hope that helps. I'd use Native and calibrate if you have a colorimeter. If not, I'd use sRGB. I generally wouldn't bother calibrating with the sRGB setting; I would use a User setting for the best mission-critical calibration. But, calibrating at Native ensures the max number of colors and that is best for any non-super-critical multimedia as it values number of colors and detail over accuracy of colors, which can already be great at Native anyway.

 

[shilatoe]

Originally posted by: xtknight

"Native" means whatever the LCD panel displays by default. It usually ends up being somewhere around 5500-7500. My 20WMGX2's native is 6400-6600 depending on the brightness which is just about perfect for me. Using "Native" ensures that you are not losing any colors, that's what it's the best for calibration because you know that the monitor is showing 100% of what it can. When you select sRGB, the monitor may have to sacrifice a couple colors to make the rest look good. But with that, you're losing gamut (total maximum number of colors), so it's not as good for calibration. After you calibrate you're already losing colors at the user's end of things, so you may as well cut your losses by using Native and making sure the monitor side is 100%.

Hope that helps. I'd use Native and calibrate if you have a colorimeter. If not, I'd use sRGB. I generally wouldn't bother calibrating with the sRGB setting; I would use a User setting for the best mission-critical calibration. But, calibrating at Native ensures the max number of colors and that is best for any non-super-critical multimedia as it values number of colors and detail over accuracy of colors, which can already be great at Native anyway.

xtknight, many on this thread speak well of your tech knowledge to which I strongly agree but few have remarked on how lucid and deconstructed are your responses to questions. I truly appreciate your rare talent. Thanks for your generous sharing.

 

[Yikes2000]

Must TN panels be perfectly flat? For 22" TN's, the vertical viewing angle could improve with a "concave" design - slightly curve the top and bottom of the screen towards the center.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: shilatoe

Originally posted by: xtknight

"Native" means whatever the LCD panel displays by default. It usually ends up being somewhere around 5500-7500. My 20WMGX2's native is 6400-6600 depending on the brightness which is just about perfect for me. Using "Native" ensures that you are not losing any colors, that's what it's the best for calibration because you know that the monitor is showing 100% of what it can. When you select sRGB, the monitor may have to sacrifice a couple colors to make the rest look good. But with that, you're losing gamut (total maximum number of colors), so it's not as good for calibration. After you calibrate you're already losing colors at the user's end of things, so you may as well cut your losses by using Native and making sure the monitor side is 100%.

Hope that helps. I'd use Native and calibrate if you have a colorimeter. If not, I'd use sRGB. I generally wouldn't bother calibrating with the sRGB setting; I would use a User setting for the best mission-critical calibration. But, calibrating at Native ensures the max number of colors and that is best for any non-super-critical multimedia as it values number of colors and detail over accuracy of colors, which can already be great at Native anyway.

xtknight, many on this thread speak well of your tech knowledge to which I strongly agree but few have remarked on how lucid and deconstructed are your responses to questions. I truly appreciate your rare talent. Thanks for your generous sharing.

Glad to hear, that's what I strive to do. I appreciate the gratitude. There is only one reason I am good at that though, because you guys ask so many different questions.

Originally posted by: Yikes2000
Must TN panels be perfectly flat? For 22" TN's, the vertical viewing angle could improve with a "concave" design - slightly curve the top and bottom of the screen towards the center.

TFTs at this time can not be bent. Only (that I know of) OLEDs/PLEDs can be physically bent.

That's an interesting idea, although I think it would eliminate one advantage of LCDs, their flatness and clarity. In addition, it would be hard to calibrate that optically to look correct to the user.

 

[everman]

Originally posted by: xtknight

Originally posted by: everman
I understand that a 22" lcd with the right resolution is large enough to display 2 full A4 size pages plus a bit extra room to spare. Does anyone know what resolution this is exactly? And what would be a good lcd for this? It will be used primarily for office type work, heavy reading and typing, no gaming or movies.

2 A4 size pages is pretty a broad description, but that is what 24" monitors are touted as being able to display, and they have a resolution of 1920x1200. The BenQ FP241W is a great 24" display. Likewise, the LG L226WT is a good 22". You could display two A4 pages on 1680x1050 if you reduce the font size a little, or maybe you can see them just barely.

[/quote]

Life-size is what I mean, and perhaps it was 24", I read it a while back and would find it really convenient to have that kind of space.
The BenQ looks nice, but I wonder how much better the picture quality is over the samsung 245BW when it comes to word processing (not taking into account video). The sammy is $509 vs $670 for the benq on newegg.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: everman

Originally posted by: xtknight

Originally posted by: everman
I understand that a 22" lcd with the right resolution is large enough to display 2 full A4 size pages plus a bit extra room to spare. Does anyone know what resolution this is exactly? And what would be a good lcd for this? It will be used primarily for office type work, heavy reading and typing, no gaming or movies.

2 A4 size pages is pretty a broad description, but that is what 24" monitors are touted as being able to display, and they have a resolution of 1920x1200. The BenQ FP241W is a great 24" display. Likewise, the LG L226WT is a good 22". You could display two A4 pages on 1680x1050 if you reduce the font size a little, or maybe you can see them just barely.

Life-size is what I mean, and perhaps it was 24", I read it a while back and would find it really convenient to have that kind of space.
The BenQ looks nice, but I wonder how much better the picture quality is over the samsung 245BW when it comes to word processing (not taking into account video). The sammy is $509 vs $670 for the benq on newegg.

Ugh..not worth the sacrifice IMO. Why pay $509 for a TN when you can get a much better display tech for just ~30% more? For text even... that's just my view on it.

 

[Azulsky]

Is there any information on the Samsung 305T, i cant seem to find reviews for it but its reccommended by Anandtech for the May article on system building, help me out guys.

 

[dedejean]

Originally posted by: dedejean

Sorry for asking stupid question, (tried to backread but cant find anything)... do 16:10 PC LCDs have 4:3 button/otpion that i can select.. where left and right black borders will appear? This way, i can still play my normal games with 1280x1024 on a 22" 1680x1050 resolution.

anybody? does VX2235wm has this?

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: dedejean

Originally posted by: dedejean

Sorry for asking stupid question, (tried to backread but cant find anything)... do 16:10 PC LCDs have 4:3 button/otpion that i can select.. where left and right black borders will appear? This way, i can still play my normal games with 1280x1024 on a 22" 1680x1050 resolution.

anybody? does VX2235wm has this?

I believe that the VX2235wm does not have this feature. Still, I am not sure.

You have an NVIDIA card, so you should be able to do it through the NVIDIA control panel (it's called aspect ratio scaling or centered if you want it that way). The NVIDIA method will work on any monitor because it sends the monitor a different signal depending on your settings.

Originally posted by: Azulsky
Is there any information on the Samsung 305T, i cant seem to find reviews for it but its reccommended by Anandtech for the May article on system building, help me out guys.

The 305T uses an 8-bit Samsung 72% gamut S-PVA panel (Samsung LTM300M1?) with overdrive (RTC) and a resolution of 2560x1600. A review is available here: http://www.behardware.com/arti...s-dell-andsamsung.html

Interestingly enough the LTM300M1 claims 92% gamut and the 305T is 72%. I'm not 100% sure about its panel.

The 305T doesn't support HDCP, according to BeHardware, which is quite a big minus.

 

[adamsleath]

Samsung 930BF 4ms G2G 19" Samsung TN Film (LTM190EX-L21)
Samsung 913B 8ms 19" Samsung TN Film (LTM190EX-L01)
Samsung 913N 8ms 19" Samsung TN Film (LTM190EX-L01)
Samsung 915N 8ms 19" Samsung TN Film (LTM190EX-L01)
Samsung 920N 8ms 19" TN Film (LTM190EX)
Samsung 930B 8ms 19" Samsung TN Film (LTM190EX-L01)
Samsung 940B 8ms 19" Samsung TN Film (LTM190EX-L01)
Samsung 940N 8ms 19" Samsung TN Film (LTM190EX-L01)
Samsung 950B 8ms 19" Samsung TN Film (LTM190EX)
BenQ FP937s+ 8ms 19" Samsung TN Film (LTM190EX-L01)
Fujitsu-Siemens T19-2 8ms 19" Samsung TN Film (LTM190EX-L01)
Hyundai B90A 8ms 19" Samsung TN Film (LTM190EX-L01)
Hyundai L90D+ 8ms 19" Samsung TN Film (LTM190EX-L01)
Iiyama E480S-B 8ms 19" Samsung TN Film (LTM190EX-L01)
Iiyama E480S-S 8ms 19" Samsung TN Film (LTM190EX-L01)
Iiyama E481S 8ms or 25ms 19" Samsung TN Film (LTM190EX-L01) or LG.Philips S-IPS (LM190E01-C4)
Hyundai B91D 4ms G2G 19" Samsung TN Film (LTM190EX-L21)
Samsung 901N 8ms 19" Samsung TN Film (LTM190EX-L01)
Samsung 901B 8ms 19" Samsung TN Film (LTM190EX-L01)
NEC MultiSync 90GX2 Pro 2ms G2G 19" Samsung TN Film (LTM190EX)
Samsung 940BX 5ms G2G 19" Samsung TN Film (LTM190EX)
Samsung SM932B 5ms 19" Samsung TN Film (LTM190EX)

which company's implentation of this LTM190EX panel would be best for gaming and video.

and i wonder what the -L21 suffix denotes (i think it is the latest incarnation?)

a fast TN panel.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just by the by; i was browsing through some shops in Brisbane, and chanced to see an

apple 24" - it looked pretty good (but also overpriced imo)
i have yet to see the dell 2407 or benq 24" p-mva in the flesh yet

i also saw the Sony Vaio notebook which has a 17" 1920x1200 screen ; now that looked bloody good: the dot pitch must be very small - i had to put my eyeball about 1 inch from the screen surface b4 i could make out any pixels.; anyway i was impressed.

nothing else stood out...; except the LG TN screens i reckon all seemed to just "look better" than the equivalent samsungs (and i saw most of the varieties that have been recently discussed in this thread) - unfortunately i didnt take note of the lg codes - i think i'll have to go back for a second look.

i saw the samsung 215tw and it stood out amongst the rest also.

i did see the 226 samsung and it looked pretty good to me, BUT a couple of the LG's looked better imo.


just my first impressions as there were so many screens in the shop placed side by side. - but also hard to compare as they were all probably adjusted differently.


the lg's i thought looked better probably had a glossy surface - and having now seen the glossy surface it does seem to improve the image as far as i am concerned.


A final comment on 24" screens - well i think it is simply amazing how large they look in comparison to 22" screens; personally i think 24" is perfectamundo and i am hoping that new technologies are put into this screen size.

 

[soltys]

Originally posted by: mikuto

For what it's worth, it sounds like the exact same thing I noticed on my 20WGX2 Pro. I don't have any dead ones (portions of subpixels that are dark when they should be lit), but I do have several that are stuck (bright when they should be dark). None of them is bothersome;

This is pretty much how I approached it as well. They don't bother me becuase they are virtually invisible.

In total I've found 5-6 "bigger" ones so far - 2-3 next to each other, but I can't even tell if it's 2 or 3. The other ones I noticed during normal work though.

Mentioned handful of green/red ones don't even look like a partially damaged subpixel - more like a microscopic gap between [sub]pixels (but then shouldn't it be white ? is it even possible ?).

Anyway, two people reporting on the Pro model so far, and both mention the same issue; makes you wonder...

Or maybe we're too crazy & pedantic