LCD Buyer's Guide

[mikuto]

Originally posted by: xtknight
I don't even know how that's possible. It could be micro-sized dust or I suppose some dirt in the liquid crystals. Or, it could be the fact that each subpixel is divided into anywhere from 2 domains (DD-IPS) to 8 domains (P-MVA/AMVA) (or not divided at all). I had thought that S-IPS screens were only single domain, though. My theory is that somehow one of the cells in those domains is malfunctioning (stuck liquid crystal or poor LC solution, likely possible). Actually, S-IPS screens require two transistors at the backend to drive them (which is why they suck more power), so that could be it also. It may have nothing to do with the cell domain configuration.

One additional bit of information that I had forgotten about: from what I've seen, some of them were only visible from certain angles, and disappeared otherwise. I'd venture a guess that supports the 'micro-sized dust or dirt in the liquid crystal'.

It all seemed very strange to me as well, that's why I brought it up, but there seem to be comments on the Net implying such defects are at least as common as fully-stuck subpixels. It could be dependent on technology, as you said: on multi-domain panels, it does indeed make sense for just a subset of the cells in a subpixel to be stuck; on such configurations, it even seems less likely for all cells to be stuck than only one or a few.

So, in the end, there may be different reasons for them depending on panel technology. This is all speculation, of course, but I think these thoughts are worth passing back and forth.

 

[Tasiin]

Best Buy let me swap out the 20WMGX2 for another one even though I was a couple days past the return date, surprisingly enough. This one's much better - it has slight banding, but you have to look very closely in order to see it and it's not blatantly obvious like it was on the other one. Definitely not at the point where I care anymore.

This might just be the famed buyer's remorse kicking in, but I'm still wondering if I made the correct decision. Dumping the CRT was absolutely the right move, but I'm not totally sure if I picked the right LCD, even after all of this. In case my incessant complaining hasn't already made it clear (which I apologize for ), I'm a bit picky when it comes to monitors. I bought the NEC because I wanted a monitor with either a 4:3 or 16:10 aspect ratio with a decent pixel pitch, not much ghosting and no input lag. Image quality is a great bonus, but it's still a secondary concern to me compared to those other items, within reason of course. I probably wouldn't be happy with a TN or VA panel or anything like that.

I was actually initially interested in the HP LP2065, but I passed it up due to there being very little information available on it at the time anywhere, and it not even being listed under the gaming section here. Now I'm wondering if that might've been a mistake. I recently read that it has a similar panel in it compared to the NEC's, very little ghosting, possibly no input lag, and a matte coating instead of the glossy one. I'm definitely not a fan of the glossy coating on this, and it's a large part of why I'm feeling a bit indecisive about this yet again. Changing the lighting in my room hasn't really done much at all to improve the reflectivity, and I still find it pretty hard on my eyes when reading some text. I also really don't like how I'm able to see myself clearly in dark colors, and how they become somewhat translucent as the reflections get worse. The fact that the LP2065 is fully half of what I paid for the NEC at some sites isn't helping, either.

Of course, even if buying that were actually a better decision, it sounds like the LP2065 panel lottery began a few months ago, and many of them are shipping with A-MVA panels now. Some of the older S-IPS ones apparently suffer from a "wave" flickering effect on them too, which makes my chances of getting a decent one even lower. Of course, this is all assuming that it's a decent monitor for my purposes. I might just be over-analyzing this again as usual, but I haven't really seen many comments on it on this thread. Is this even worth thinking about it, or should I just try and deal with OptiClear? Thanks, and sorry for all of the questions

 

[mikuto]

Originally posted by: Tasiin
I was actually initially interested in the HP LP2065, but I passed it up due to there being very little information available on it at the time anywhere, and it not even being listed under the gaming section here. Now I'm wondering if that might've been a mistake. I recently read that it has a similar panel in it compared to the NEC's, very little ghosting, possibly no input lag, and a matte coating instead of the glossy one. I'm definitely not a fan of the glossy coating on this, and it's a large part of why I'm feeling a bit indecisive about this yet again. Changing the lighting in my room hasn't really done much at all to improve the reflectivity, and I still find it pretty hard on my eyes when reading some text. I also really don't like how I'm able to see myself clearly in dark colors, and how they become somewhat translucent as the reflections get worse. The fact that the LP2065 is fully half of what I paid for the NEC at some sites isn't helping, either.

Of course, even if buying that were actually a better decision, it sounds like the LP2065 panel lottery began a few months ago, and many of them are shipping with A-MVA panels now. Some of the older S-IPS ones apparently suffer from a "wave" flickering effect on them too, which makes my chances of getting a decent one even lower. Of course, this is all assuming that it's a decent monitor for my purposes. I might just be over-analyzing this again as usual, but I haven't really seen many comments on it on this thread. Is this even worth thinking about it, or should I just try and deal with OptiClear? Thanks, and sorry for all of the questions

Well, if you want a quick, straight answer, here it is: NO , it's not even worth thinking about.

I wrote my thoughts on the comparison between the LP2065 and the 20WGX2 regarding text display in a post a couple of days ago. On the subject of reflections, I'm surprised you find them to be a problem when reading text; are you using a dark background? I work with black (and colored) text on white or gray backgrounds, and I can't see any reflections, even with less-than-ideal lighting. I'm typing this text using the standard AT interface, dark gray text over light grayish-greenish-cyan-whatever background, hardly an optimal contrast combination, with a 100W light on the ceiling behind me, and I find it quite pleasant to use; and certainly no reflections. Of course, there's a considerable amount of subjectiveness involved when we're talking about how we like a monitor, so these are just my opinions and nothing more, but I'm sticking to them .

Yes, reflections are an issue with this monitor, but compared to all the good things you're getting, it's a good tradeoff in my opinion. When I deal with dark images and backgrounds, I focus on the image itself, not the reflections, as they appear behind the plane of the image, so it's easy enough to keep them out of focus. Glare is a different issue, as you can't really avoid it by focusing away from it, but that's where changing the lighting in the room helps a lot. I said it before, and I'm sticking to that opinion as well: if you're in a brightly lit office and there's nothing you can do about it, this screen is probably not the best idea. Otherwise, I think the tradeoff is worth it.

 

[Tasiin]

It actually looks just fine on brighter backgrounds like AT's default interface, it's just darker colors that make it really terrible. It's more of an issue in games than it is on the desktop, though it's pretty annoying there on dark colors as well.

Where did you post your comparison of the LP2065 and the NEC's text, by the way? I can't seem to find it on this thread, and as we all know the search feature has become rather useless here.

Honestly though, text isn't my primary concern about this monitor right now. I would really like a monitor that was a bit easier to look at than the NEC for reading web pages and such, but I'm still okay with it for extended use in Visual Studio or debuggers, which I spend quite a bit of time in. Seems like it's been ages since I had a monitor on my main computer that was comfortable to look at for anything though -- I've really gotten into the habit of just doing web surfing or any extended reading on this smaller LCD on the computer next to me. It has a very thick matte coating with absolutely no reflections on it which I find myself preferring now.

Still, the main reason why I was willing to spend the extra money on the NEC was due to its gaming performance. As far as that goes, I can't really find any faults with it other than the reflections, which are very distracting in dark areas. You're absolutely right about it being less noticeable if you don't focus on the reflections, but that's difficult to do sometimes when dark areas clearly become translucent, and if you happen to move a little bit, your eyes (or at least I do) will focus immediately and unavoidably on the reflection of yourself in the monitor.

Some people are saying that the reflection is similar to the way CRTs behaved with the glass casing, but I never noticed as much on mine as I do on this. Maybe mine just had more anti-glare coating on it than most, or OptiClear is a bit more reflective than even the glass on CRTs. I also had far more direct lighting (even some very bright overhead lights sometimes) in my room at the time I had that, which I'm no longer using after getting the NEC -- I'm using a standing incandescent lamp that's to the left and behind the monitor a bit. As far as I can tell, there are no light sources in my room any longer that are shining directly on the monitor, but the reflections are still extremely noticeable. The only way I've been able to eliminate them completely is to turn off every single light in the room at night.

Even very faint light sources such as my other monitor will still create a reflection otherwise. Darker games like Thief or Deus Ex look terrible unless the room is pitch black. This is really making me wonder if the HP wouldn't have been a better choice for things like that, as long as the ghosting isn't too bad in comparison to the NEC, and there's no input lag. :/

*sigh*

As much as I like some things about this monitor and LCDs in general, this has been a very frustrating experience. It's really too bad no decent aperture grille CRTs are being produced anymore.

 

[amd7674]

Hi Tassin,

I've owned both HP LP2065 and NEC 20QMGX2. IMHO both monitors are excellent, as long as you get S-IPS panel with LP2065. I end up with NEC, because my original HP 2065 with S-IPS panel had a wave flickering issue, and HP couldn't provide me with a brand new replacement with S-IPS panel, they have send me A-MVA panel, which I didn't want it and after a month without monitor and numerous fights with HP I got my money back. However putting this aside panel response times, ghosting..etc..are pretty much the same IMHO, at the end is comes to personal preference.

1) aspect ratio 16:10 vs. 4:3
and
2) anti-glare vs. glossy

I was always against 16:10, however I got use to it and it doesn't bother me anymore, plus with PS2, spreadsheets can be very useful. Since I work in a dark environment I don't see any reflections on the screen, even with the light on or blinds open during day it doesn't bother me. I don't play games, so that could be a reason why I don't notice it so much. IMO glossy screen 'looks' better, anti-glare looks like a sand paper when you look at it closely, also opticlear makes colors more vibrant and blacks blacker... Also NEC has tons of inputs (bonus) and much nicer OSD. Plus they don't play any lottery games like HP, Dell and Samsung.

If you cannot work with glossy screen, I would recommend getting HP LP2065, however ask the store for the label outside AMM### (stands for A-MVA) and GSM### (stands for S-IPS) panel.

No mother what you buy, it won't be CRT quality. LCD technology still needs time to mature and there is a lot to improve ;-)

GOOD LUCK !!!

BTW.....

this site rocks for widescreen 1680*1050 wallpapers, they look awesome on my Nec 20WMGX2

Supercar Wallpapers

 

[Laughlin]

I'm looking for a 20 - 22 inch LCD for mostly video. I'm not too keen on glossy finishes, and I don't to spend over $600, so I was considering the Samsung 215TW. Then again, the TW is supposed to have "lag" issues. Does anyone with the 215 have/notice this problem? I don't really consider it a good multimedia monitor if the audio comes out a half second before the video

Would it be worth it to get a refurbished VX2025WM on ebay or elsewhere? I know this monitor is supposed to be pretty good for video.

 

[mikuto]

Originally posted by: Tasiin
Where did you post your comparison of the LP2065 and the NEC's text, by the way? I can't seem to find it on this thread, and as we all know the search feature has become rather useless here.

Here it is:

The OptiClear coating: yes, I had to bring this up again, although it's been debated to death so far. The reason is I have some thoughts on it and I'm curious what you guys think. Basically, it's a tradeoff: you get more reflections, but also better colors and clearer pixels - implicitly, clearer text. I find the latter to be more apparent on 20'' screens because of the smaller dot pitch. I remember looking at an HP LP2065 (20'', 1600x1200) some time ago and thinking 'somehow these pixels are not as sharply defined as I would expect from an LCD on DVI'. In retrospect, I think it was the coating. From what I read on the subject, the matte coatings basically try to disperse reflected light as much as possible to reduce glare; a side effect is that they also scatter some of the transmitted light, thus introducing some blurriness. The glossy coatings rely on different techniques to reduce glare; while they obviously aren't very good at that, they don't disperse transmitted light either, yielding sharper pixels. While I didn't find this obvious on displays with larger pixels, like 19'' 1280x1024, things are different on 20'' ones. I also think I know now why pretty much every laptop you can buy these days has a glossy screen: the dot pitch on laptop displays is getting smaller and smaller, and the effect of matte coatings worse and worse, so the manufacturers had to choose glossy ones, despite the disadvantage of more reflections (I personally find that to be even worse on a laptop screen, because of the position). Do these ramblings make any sense? Anyway, given that I can control ambient light to some extent in the room where I work, I'm now pretty happy this screen has a glossy coating - I really like the sharper text.

The full post is a couple of pages back (at the default page size).

Originally posted by: Tasiin
Honestly though, text isn't my primary concern about this monitor right now. I would really like a monitor that was a bit easier to look at than the NEC for reading web pages and such, but I'm still okay with it for extended use in Visual Studio or debuggers, which I spend quite a bit of time in. Seems like it's been ages since I had a monitor on my main computer that was comfortable to look at for anything though -- I've really gotten into the habit of just doing web surfing or any extended reading on this smaller LCD on the computer next to me. It has a very thick matte coating with absolutely no reflections on it which I find myself preferring now.

Are you sure it isn't the dot pitch that's making it harder to look at? I'm saying this since you mentioned the smaller LCD - what's the pixel size on that compared to the NEC? If it's not that, can you identify the specific trait(s) that make it harder to look at? I'm just curious.

 

[HomeAppraiser]

I am looking for a 20" to 22" Widescreen LCD monitor that rotates 90' for $200 or less without rebates. Not for gaming or photo editing. I am just sick of scrolling and want to see a full legal size page on one screen. Considering the Acer 19" widescreen at Staples for $150 OTD, but really want bigger as I have a 19" CRT right now. It is for my old work P4 with out a video card, however I have an FX5700 that could go in the AGP slot if needed. Thanks in advance.

 

[Tasiin]

...and HP couldn't provide me with a brand new replacement with S-IPS panel, they have send me A-MVA panel, which I didn't want it and after a month without monitor and numerous fights with HP I got my money back.

That sounds pretty bad, and I've heard some similar horror stories in regards to trying to get an S-IPS version of this monitor without defects. Might be a bad idea, then.

No mother what you buy, it won't be CRT quality. LCD technology still needs time to mature and there is a lot to improve ;-)

I know. I'm half considering trying to order a CRT refurb from AccurateIt, though that would really depend on whether my return period was extended by getting the replacement NEC from Best Buy. If it wasn't, then I suppose this'll be my monitor for the next few years or so. That wouldn't be a terrible thing (or I never would have even considered keeping it earlier), but I still can't shake the feeling that I'm paying a lot of money to make quite a few compromises compared to my CRT. If it was extended, I'll probably end up ordering one to at least check it out and compare it to this, and I'll just send it back if it's not good.

Still, I am at least quite impressed by the image quality on this (as long as I can't see myself in it ). Until I saw this monitor I never would have imagined that an LCD could match my old monitor in terms of image quality, but I think this is easily even better than it was when it was new, if the glare isn't too bad.

Are you sure it isn't the dot pitch that's making it harder to look at? I'm saying this since you mentioned the smaller LCD - what's the pixel size on that compared to the NEC? If it's not that, can you identify the specific trait(s) that make it harder to look at? I'm just curious.

It's a 15" LCD, so it has a rather startlingly high pixel pitch of .297mm according to the chart on this AT article. Like I mentioned earlier, it has a pretty heavy anti-glare coating on it so it's a bit blurred out and the sand paper effect is definitely evident. My CRT had a .24mm dot pitch and I ran it at 1280x960 most of the time. I don't think CRTs can be directly compared to LCDs for this though, can they?

I'm not sure what exactly it is about that's hurting my eyes, really. Maybe it's the sharpness -- both my other LCD and CRT are a bit blurred, and I think that's part of why I find them more comfortable. White text against black backgrounds seems to be especially painful with the NEC. Not that that's a wonderful combination to begin with, but I can at least look at it for more than a few minutes on different monitors. Pages like this are almost impossible for me to read on the NEC, but they were fine on my CRT and the other LCD, with the LCD being the easiest of the two. Perhaps I'm just unusually sensitive to it, but that hurts on this monitor, regardless of the settings.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: slayek
Just want to chime in since I bought an Acer X221WSD recently. The monitor is a huge step up from Dell 1704FPT, both in size and color. Color is very accurate in my eyes, not irridicent bright or absurd deep, while using teh Auto Adjust feature for text type display. There is little button thru which you can adjust the default color settings. I am not a big time gamer, but whiel plating Supreme Commandar demo, I have not noticed any ghosting. DVD's look littl enoisey in full screen, but 1080p HD content (from quicktime trailers @ apple.com)looks absolutely stunning. Viewing angle is very much acceptable, unless you seat on chair and seat up n down in ryhtmic fashion. Dual monitor view can be problematic since sidewise viewing angle is not very high, but once again, for normal work, it will not be a problem. TEXT display is crisp and clear.
Overall, I am impressed and satisfied.

Cool. I do think that the 22" TNs are a new, better wave of TNs.

Originally posted by: mikuto

Originally posted by: xtknight
I don't even know how that's possible. It could be micro-sized dust or I suppose some dirt in the liquid crystals. Or, it could be the fact that each subpixel is divided into anywhere from 2 domains (DD-IPS) to 8 domains (P-MVA/AMVA) (or not divided at all). I had thought that S-IPS screens were only single domain, though. My theory is that somehow one of the cells in those domains is malfunctioning (stuck liquid crystal or poor LC solution, likely possible). Actually, S-IPS screens require two transistors at the backend to drive them (which is why they suck more power), so that could be it also. It may have nothing to do with the cell domain configuration.

One additional bit of information that I had forgotten about: from what I've seen, some of them were only visible from certain angles, and disappeared otherwise. I'd venture a guess that supports the 'micro-sized dust or dirt in the liquid crystal'.

It all seemed very strange to me as well, that's why I brought it up, but there seem to be comments on the Net implying such defects are at least as common as fully-stuck subpixels. It could be dependent on technology, as you said: on multi-domain panels, it does indeed make sense for just a subset of the cells in a subpixel to be stuck; on such configurations, it even seems less likely for all cells to be stuck than only one or a few.

So, in the end, there may be different reasons for them depending on panel technology. This is all speculation, of course, but I think these thoughts are worth passing back and forth.

I'm afraid I can't add any more to what's already been said.

Originally posted by: Tasiin
Best Buy let me swap out the 20WMGX2 for another one even though I was a couple days past the return date, surprisingly enough. This one's much better - it has slight banding, but you have to look very closely in order to see it and it's not blatantly obvious like it was on the other one. Definitely not at the point where I care anymore.

This might just be the famed buyer's remorse kicking in, but I'm still wondering if I made the correct decision. Dumping the CRT was absolutely the right move, but I'm not totally sure if I picked the right LCD, even after all of this. In case my incessant complaining hasn't already made it clear (which I apologize for ), I'm a bit picky when it comes to monitors. I bought the NEC because I wanted a monitor with either a 4:3 or 16:10 aspect ratio with a decent pixel pitch, not much ghosting and no input lag. Image quality is a great bonus, but it's still a secondary concern to me compared to those other items, within reason of course. I probably wouldn't be happy with a TN or VA panel or anything like that.

I was actually initially interested in the HP LP2065, but I passed it up due to there being very little information available on it at the time anywhere, and it not even being listed under the gaming section here. Now I'm wondering if that might've been a mistake. I recently read that it has a similar panel in it compared to the NEC's, very little ghosting, possibly no input lag, and a matte coating instead of the glossy one. I'm definitely not a fan of the glossy coating on this, and it's a large part of why I'm feeling a bit indecisive about this yet again. Changing the lighting in my room hasn't really done much at all to improve the reflectivity, and I still find it pretty hard on my eyes when reading some text. I also really don't like how I'm able to see myself clearly in dark colors, and how they become somewhat translucent as the reflections get worse. The fact that the LP2065 is fully half of what I paid for the NEC at some sites isn't helping, either.

Of course, even if buying that were actually a better decision, it sounds like the LP2065 panel lottery began a few months ago, and many of them are shipping with A-MVA panels now. Some of the older S-IPS ones apparently suffer from a "wave" flickering effect on them too, which makes my chances of getting a decent one even lower. Of course, this is all assuming that it's a decent monitor for my purposes. I might just be over-analyzing this again as usual, but I haven't really seen many comments on it on this thread. Is this even worth thinking about it, or should I just try and deal with OptiClear? Thanks, and sorry for all of the questions

I can't help but think the dislike of the glossy coating is due to psychological or subconscious factors. Pretty much all I use this LCD for is reading text and I feel no strain at all. The IPS+glossy is so much easier on the eyes than the MVA+matte next to me. If you think you're going to notice it, you will. In fact now, I'm noticing it more! Darn you!

The LP2065 might match the color accuracy of the 20WMGX2 but I don't think the contrast will be the same. It's not glossy so the contrast will automatically suffer there. Plus, it's not nearly as bright as the NEC and probably twice as slow in response time. You would just have been more disappointed with the LP2065 (well, I know I would be after using my mom's 2007FP at work).

Comparatively, looking at this VP930b (MVA) next to me feels like looking through blurry glasses. Ugh. My eyes always drift back to the NEC as soon as possible.

 

[mikuto]

Originally posted by: Tasiin
I know. I'm half considering trying to order a CRT refurb from AccurateIt, though that would really depend on whether my return period was extended by getting the replacement NEC from Best Buy. If it wasn't, then I suppose this'll be my monitor for the next few years or so. That wouldn't be a terrible thing (or I never would have even considered keeping it earlier), but I still can't shake the feeling that I'm paying a lot of money to make quite a few compromises compared to my CRT. If it was extended, I'll probably end up ordering one to at least check it out and compare it to this, and I'll just send it back if it's not good.

After the first hour of working with the sharp text on this monitor, it became clear to me that I'll never go back to a CRT. Even a high quality aperture grille one just can't compete in this field.

It's a 15" LCD, so it has a rather startlingly high pixel pitch of .297mm according to the chart on this AT article. Like I mentioned earlier, it has a pretty heavy anti-glare coating on it so it's a bit blurred out and the sand paper effect is definitely evident. My CRT had a .24mm dot pitch and I ran it at 1280x960 most of the time. I don't think CRTs can be directly compared to LCDs for this though, can they?

Indeed, they can't. On LCDs, the dot pitch is just an indication of the size of the displayed pixels in 1:1 (no scaling); it's not strictly a measure of actual pixel size, since there's space between them, but you get the idea. Choosing one is generally a matter of personal preference: some people like smaller pixels, some don't.

On CRTs, the dot pitch is a measure of how fine the physical raster of dots (mask, grille) actually is; the finer it is, the more accurately it can reproduce smaller details, including smaller pixels when you increase the resolution; so you'd want it to be as small as possible, as it doesn't influence the size of the pixels, but the accuracy with which they are reproduced.

What we want to compare here is the pixel size, so for the CRT you'd have to know the effective (usable) size of the screen, then do the division to figure out how large a pixel would be when displaying 1280x960.

I'm not sure what exactly it is about that's hurting my eyes, really. Maybe it's the sharpness -- both my other LCD and CRT are a bit blurred, and I think that's part of why I find them more comfortable.

Yeah, you seem to prefer larger, slightly blurred pixels. Well, I have a suggestion for you. It goes against all my personal preferences; actually, I'm having difficulty even getting... my... hands... to write... this... down... Try setting your screen size to 1440x900.

Phew, there, I can't believe I actually said it. This will give you a dot pitch of 0.3 mm, while preserving the aspect ratio of 16:10. The pixels should be a bit blurry as well. You'll lose some screen real estate, of course, but it may be worth a try.

White text against black backgrounds seems to be especially painful with the NEC. Not that that's a wonderful combination to begin with, but I can at least look at it for more than a few minutes on different monitors. Pages like this are almost impossible for me to read on the NEC, but they were fine on my CRT and the other LCD, with the LCD being the easiest of the two. Perhaps I'm just unusually sensitive to it, but that hurts on this monitor, regardless of the settings.

Ouch! Yeah, I agree. A bad choice for displaying text - that's white (255, 255, 255) on black (0, 0, 0); you generally don't do that - look at the command prompt in Windows, for example: yeah, it's white on black, but the 'white' is actually (192, 192, 192), which makes it easier on the eyes. I do think it's the contrast that makes it so painful. My NEC stays at 18.7% brightness and 77.1% contrast; I lowered the contrast to 0%, and the text became easier to read. But you do want that contrast when reading black text over a white or light gray background - I guess it's what our eyes and brains are used to.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Tasiin
Honestly though, text isn't my primary concern about this monitor right now. I would really like a monitor that was a bit easier to look at than the NEC for reading web pages and such, but I'm still okay with it for extended use in Visual Studio or debuggers, which I spend quite a bit of time in. Seems like it's been ages since I had a monitor on my main computer that was comfortable to look at for anything though -- I've really gotten into the habit of just doing web surfing or any extended reading on this smaller LCD on the computer next to me. It has a very thick matte coating with absolutely no reflections on it which I find myself preferring now.

Looking at Visual Studio on this monitor can be painful so I suggest using settings that yield the max contrast at a lower brightness. High brightness and the thin text of Visual Studio will be hard to look at. Have you tried my any of my various sets of calibrated settings for the 20WMGX2? There's a link to the thread at http://www.lcdresource.com/

Still, the main reason why I was willing to spend the extra money on the NEC was due to its gaming performance. As far as that goes, I can't really find any faults with it other than the reflections, which are very distracting in dark areas. You're absolutely right about it being less noticeable if you don't focus on the reflections, but that's difficult to do sometimes when dark areas clearly become translucent, and if you happen to move a little bit, your eyes (or at least I do) will focus immediately and unavoidably on the reflection of yourself in the monitor.

Some people are saying that the reflection is similar to the way CRTs behaved with the glass casing, but I never noticed as much on mine as I do on this. Maybe mine just had more anti-glare coating on it than most, or OptiClear is a bit more reflective than even the glass on CRTs. I also had far more direct lighting (even some very bright overhead lights sometimes) in my room at the time I had that, which I'm no longer using after getting the NEC -- I'm using a standing incandescent lamp that's to the left and behind the monitor a bit. As far as I can tell, there are no light sources in my room any longer that are shining directly on the monitor, but the reflections are still extremely noticeable. The only way I've been able to eliminate them completely is to turn off every single light in the room at night.

Even very faint light sources such as my other monitor will still create a reflection otherwise. Darker games like Thief or Deus Ex look terrible unless the room is pitch black. This is really making me wonder if the HP wouldn't have been a better choice for things like that, as long as the ghosting isn't too bad in comparison to the NEC, and there's no input lag. :/

*sigh*

As much as I like some things about this monitor and LCDs in general, this has been a very frustrating experience. It's really too bad no decent aperture grille CRTs are being produced anymore.

I will keep my sentiment that you are just noticing it because you think you are noticing it. I really don't think it is too evident. It's the middle of the day here and I have sunlight behind me and some drapes. I can only see a reflection in the upper right of my screen right now and I usually just move my head to move the reflection out of the way.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Laughlin
I'm looking for a 20 - 22 inch LCD for mostly video. I'm not too keen on glossy finishes, and I don't to spend over $600, so I was considering the Samsung 215TW. Then again, the TW is supposed to have "lag" issues. Does anyone with the 215 have/notice this problem? I don't really consider it a good multimedia monitor if the audio comes out a half second before the video

Would it be worth it to get a refurbished VX2025WM on ebay or elsewhere? I know this monitor is supposed to be pretty good for video.

Hrm, I would try the 215TW honestly. I don't believe the many people are annoyed by the input lag, the psychological effects of which have been heavily debated.

It is about 80 ms at the absolute worst (or maybe 50 ms), nowhere near 500 ms (half a second).

Originally posted by: HomeAppraiser
I am looking for a 20" to 22" Widescreen LCD monitor that rotates 90' for $200 or less without rebates. Not for gaming or photo editing. I am just sick of scrolling and want to see a full legal size page on one screen. Considering the Acer 19" widescreen at Staples for $150 OTD, but really want bigger as I have a 19" CRT right now. It is for my old work P4 with out a video card, however I have an FX5700 that could go in the AGP slot if needed. Thanks in advance.

Sorry, no decent 20" LCDs exist under $200 unless you find a crazy deal somewhere. Regretfully, I am not sure which LCDs at that price point can pivot/rotate. The Samsung 940BX is over $200 although it can pivot/rotate 90 degrees and I think in general it's a great general usage monitor.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001080

Spend the extra $20 ^.

 

[Yikes2000]

Here is an interesting idea for those experiencing glare on the 20WMGX2... "polarized" sun glasses. They are great for filtering out certain reflections. Perhaps they would work here. Could someone try it?

If it reduces the glare, then one could fit a large polarized film (clear perhaps?) over the LCD. http://www.polarization.com/cgi-bin/polarshop/polarshop.cgi

 

[94tt]

Has anyone had a look at the Samsung 206BW? Claimed CR is 3000:1 in Dynamic Mode, 800:1 static. 2ms response time, so I assume it must be some type of TN panel??

I took a look at this at Fry's today and, subjectively, it was the second best looking screen next to the 20WMGX2 @ $600. I was bummed they didn't have any Acer or LG panels to look at.

I'm upgrading from a Samsung 910T and looking for something at least equivalent in wide-screen format, but not sure I want to shell out for the NEC. I was considering the 22" Viewsonic VX2235, but after seeing the 206BW and NEC I don't think it's on the list anymore. Any advice?

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: 94tt
Has anyone had a look at the Samsung 206BW? Claimed CR is 3000:1 in Dynamic Mode, 800:1 static. 2ms response time, so I assume it must be some type of TN panel??

Yup, it definitely is a TN. It's one of Samsung's new-generation ones.

I took a look at this at Fry's today and, subjectively, it was the second best looking screen next to the 20WMGX2 @ $600. I was bummed they didn't have any Acer or LG panels to look at.

Hrm, that's interesting although I bet the LG L204WT also would have been pleasing to the eyes.

I'm upgrading from a Samsung 910T and looking for something at least equivalent in wide-screen format, but not sure I want to shell out for the NEC. I was considering the 22" Viewsonic VX2235, but after seeing the 206BW and NEC I don't think it's on the list anymore. Any advice?

The 206 actually sounds like it may be a good choice to you. If you like what you saw, then I'd go with that. The LG L204WT is a good option also.

 

[djkilla]

NEC 24" LCD2470WNX review gets 'Editor's Choice'

http://www.i4u.com/section-viewarticle-215.html

 

[adamsleath]

198 pages!!!!!

Havent read all of them i admit...but i have found this thread the most thorough/useful that i have yet seen.

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/ - a useful site for panel identification and models.


Prior to seeeing this thread i had also found the NEC 20WMGX2 AS-IPS tft...and thought it looked like a good one.

I want it all... i want quality and fast response....but i'm only looking for 1280x1024 (19") 'normal' aspect...although i'm slowly coming around to the idea of a wide screen.

Problem is i havent found anywhere in Australia to purchase the NEC AS-IPS...

LaCie 320 16ms 20" A-TW-IPS: have you seen this one? it costs a bomb...but is it worth it? that A-TW-IPS is supposedly the ants pants.

I am also wanting best bangs for the buck like evryone else....so i figure the lacie is out...but i suppose i would like to know someone's opinion about tft's comparable in "quality/performance" to the NEC 20WMGX2

i have found NEC 1980-fXi... 1990sxi (S-IPS) but only 18ms......


mmm interestingly, the 20" 2070nx at 16ms S-IPS is cheaper here : $647 AUD - well...i've read some reviews and it isn't looking too good vs samsung/lg displays :/

lg L2013P any1??? or samsung 213T??? : mm they are old models by the looks...well all i can say is that i am as confused as a two headed rhino atm.

Toms Hardware 2006 19" panel review reckons Samsung 970P for pic quality and Viewsonic VX922 for gaming....and my search continues...

now looking at hp2065 s-ips 8ms $800AUD 0.255 dot pitch.

 

[Tasiin]

Meh. I'm going to return it to Best Buy tomorrow. LCD technology has clearly made some great strides in the last few years, but this still isn't for me yet. I found a site selling a Dell branded version of my old CRT, so I think I'm just going to go with that and wait it out a bit longer.

Also, for anyone who may be interested: I now realize that both of the NECs I've had have exhibited the "wave" flickering effect that people have complained about with some LP2065 models, which isn't terribly surprising given that they use extremely similar panels. I'm not sure whether it's a new development that's only affecting newer revisions or what, but it's definitely happening on mine right now.

There's a discussion about it here for the LP2065, and I'm seeing exactly the same thing. It gets worse if you enable ADVM or decrease the brightness, and it tends to be most noticeable on gray colors -- which my desktop is, unfortunately (RGB colors are 88, 87, 104 with no desktop wallpaper selected). With brightness at 17, contrast at 50, and ADVM on my desktop clearly has rolling waves coming from the top and bottom to the center and then sort of fading out there. It's much more pronounced at the bottom of the screen than any other spot. It's also more annoying on the desktop than in a game, since it's much easier to see on a solid color like this.

I can't help but think the dislike of the glossy coating is due to psychological or subconscious factors. Pretty much all I use this LCD for is reading text and I feel no strain at all. The IPS+glossy is so much easier on the eyes than the MVA+matte next to me. If you think you're going to notice it, you will. In fact now, I'm noticing it more! Darn you!

Heh, sorry.

I'm not sure what it is about the gloss that bothers me. Maybe my vision is just a lot different than yours, but there is definitely something about this monitor that's giving me more eye strain than a CRT. I honestly cannot think of any monitor that I would want to use less than this one for just text, so there must be some difference here.

Every other LCD I've used has caused less strain for me - though they've all been matte, of course. The flickering may be bothering me as well, even if it's not always readily apparent on some colors. Who knows?

Anyhow, thanks a lot for your help again, xt. I hope I haven't made too much of a nuisance of myself complaining about this, or seemed ungrateful. I really appreciate the help you've given me. It seems clear to me now though that I went in to this looking for something that hasn't been made yet.

 

[adamsleath]

........SED any1??? FORTHE LOVE OF ALL THE GODS OF ELECTRONICS; START MAKING SED SCREENS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PERSISTING WITH LCD TECHNOLOGY WHEN THERE IS A FAR SUPERIOR TECHNIQUE AVAILABLE REALLY ANNOYS ME.



and i was all excited about the hp lp2065 too o well; back to the drawing board.

 

[Tasiin]

FED now apparently, if it doesn't turn out to be vaporware like a few certain other display technologies which shall remain nameless.

That does look really impressive, though. Gives me hope that there will eventually be something that can match a good Trinitron display again without the massive size, heat, and the myriad problems that they tend to develop as they age.

By the way...

but i'm only looking for 1280x1024 (19") 'normal' aspect...

Just nitpicking a little here, but 1280x1024 isn't really a "normal" aspect -- it's 5:4, not 4:3 or 16:10. 1280x960 is actually 4:3. Some games (typically older ones) do have problems with 5:4 resolutions and will try to display them with an aspect ratio or FOV meant for a 4:3 resolution, which is a big part of why I didn't want to get a 17-19" LCD myself, as they're all 5:4 for some reason. Seems like none of the 20"+ LCDs are free of problems themselves, though.

 

[adamsleath]

im actually running 1280 x 960 believe it or not... it suits medieval 2 at high graphics setting with the computer i have atm

just found NEC 2090UXi ...around 1000AUD 8ms sips

...and bring on the FED Sony, bring it on, bring it on bringiton..etc ad nauseum..what can i say? im a poor 'sumer who wants to look at pretty pretty lights.

I have a sony 32" trinitron hd tv 1080i... itsa very nice luigi!!!

lcd's seem highly inconsistent from one part of any given panel to another and they have leakage problems. It seems difficult to find a good one.

..samsung 204t S-PVA...16ms !...dat's all i can see in lcd's.....for now.

Philips 200P7EB 8ms sips around $600-700 aud


just found NEC GX2 widescreen 20" for $900AUD...at www.computershop888.com.au

 

[pdawg1717]

Samsung 226BW "C" panel vs. Acer X221WSD

I got the 226BW but it was a "C" panel so I exchanged it at BB and got another "C" panel...other than some backlight bleeding the panel seems fine but it being $70 more than the Acer, I'm wondering if the Acer would end up being similar in PQ/bleeding since I'm not paying for a "real" 226BW...in store they look very similar but you know how inaccurate in-store comparisons can be...

Also, when displaying a photo slide show for example, I notice that the edges of the pictures are not parallel with the edge of the screen...is this expected in LCD panels?

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Tasiin
Meh. I'm going to return it to Best Buy tomorrow. LCD technology has clearly made some great strides in the last few years, but this still isn't for me yet. I found a site selling a Dell branded version of my old CRT, so I think I'm just going to go with that and wait it out a bit longer.

Also, for anyone who may be interested: I now realize that both of the NECs I've had have exhibited the "wave" flickering effect that people have complained about with some LP2065 models, which isn't terribly surprising given that they use extremely similar panels. I'm not sure whether it's a new development that's only affecting newer revisions or what, but it's definitely happening on mine right now.

Hmm. I haven't noticed this either but I won't completely discount it. Sometimes I think I'm seeing things. It's definitely not clear so it's probably a new-panel thing.

There's a discussion about it here for the LP2065, and I'm seeing exactly the same thing. It gets worse if you enable ADVM or decrease the brightness, and it tends to be most noticeable on gray colors -- which my desktop is, unfortunately (RGB colors are 88, 87, 104 with no desktop wallpaper selected). With brightness at 17, contrast at 50, and ADVM on my desktop clearly has rolling waves coming from the top and bottom to the center and then sort of fading out there. It's much more pronounced at the bottom of the screen than any other spot. It's also more annoying on the desktop than in a game, since it's much easier to see on a solid color like this.

I can't help but think the dislike of the glossy coating is due to psychological or subconscious factors. Pretty much all I use this LCD for is reading text and I feel no strain at all. The IPS+glossy is so much easier on the eyes than the MVA+matte next to me. If you think you're going to notice it, you will. In fact now, I'm noticing it more! Darn you!

Heh, sorry.

lol I probably should have added a smiley after that one. I don't know what I was thinking. No offense meant. Some things are hard for me to accept.

I'm not sure what it is about the gloss that bothers me. Maybe my vision is just a lot different than yours, but there is definitely something about this monitor that's giving me more eye strain than a CRT. I honestly cannot think of any monitor that I would want to use less than this one for just text, so there must be some difference here.

Ah, certainly. Like I said, I use this thing everyday for text and it's the best thing I've used for text. Polar opposites if you will. Actually I am judging that by comparing Linux on the NEC to Windows on other machines. In Windows XP, this LCD can look over-sharp for some reason. I believe Linux has better font/AA algorithms. Vista seemed better than XP, though still not quite on par with Linux's clarity. Anyhow with that fanboyish digression out of the way...

Every other LCD I've used has caused less strain for me - though they've all been matte, of course. The flickering may be bothering me as well, even if it's not always readily apparent on some colors. Who knows?

Anyhow, thanks a lot for your help again, xt. I hope I haven't made too much of a nuisance of myself complaining about this, or seemed ungrateful. I really appreciate the help you've given me. It seems clear to me now though that I went in to this looking for something that hasn't been made yet.

Hey, I hope you find an LCD you like. Somehow I'll just have to accept that the NEC is not for everyone. I can't be blaming you if your eyes are different than mine though. I firmly believe there must be a physical difference at work, though (increased susceptibility to glare). Not that I haven't been wrong before...

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: djkilla
NEC 24" LCD2470WNX review gets 'Editor's Choice'

http://www.i4u.com/section-viewarticle-215.html

Cool, although I'm not familiar with i4u. I'll keep my eyes out for more info.

Originally posted by: adamsleath
198 pages!!!!!

Havent read all of them i admit...but i have found this thread the most thorough/useful that i have yet seen.

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/ - a useful site for panel identification and models.


Prior to seeeing this thread i had also found the NEC 20WMGX2 AS-IPS tft...and thought it looked like a good one.

I want it all... i want quality and fast response....but i'm only looking for 1280x1024 (19") 'normal' aspect...although i'm slowly coming around to the idea of a wide screen.

Problem is i havent found anywhere in Australia to purchase the NEC AS-IPS...

LaCie 320 16ms 20" A-TW-IPS: have you seen this one? it costs a bomb...but is it worth it? that A-TW-IPS is supposedly the ants pants.

I am also wanting best bangs for the buck like evryone else....so i figure the lacie is out...but i suppose i would like to know someone's opinion about tft's comparable in "quality/performance" to the NEC 20WMGX2

i have found NEC 1980-fXi... 1990sxi (S-IPS) but only 18ms......


mmm interestingly, the 20" 2070nx at 16ms S-IPS is cheaper here : $647 AUD - well...i've read some reviews and it isn't looking too good vs samsung/lg displays :/

lg L2013P any1??? or samsung 213T??? : mm they are old models by the looks...well all i can say is that i am as confused as a two headed rhino atm.

Toms Hardware 2006 19" panel review reckons Samsung 970P for pic quality and Viewsonic VX922 for gaming....and my search continues...

now looking at hp2065 s-ips 8ms $800AUD 0.255 dot pitch.

Well after reading that barrage, the HP LP2065 sounds like a pretty good choice then. Really I don't have much advice but I'd think the 320 would be way too expensive? Plus the response time of a LaCie probably wouldn't be that great. The HP will give you a quality S-IPS panel (in most cases) with a fast response time at that. There have been talks of MVA panels going into the HP although I believe by far most are S-IPS. Even if you get the AMVA panel it's not the end of the world: still better than most of the 20"s you'll find out there.