NEC 20WMGX2 impressions / black levels question.

[JRW]

So im at Best Buy last night and decided to give the 20WMGX2 a go, I made sure I could get a refund just in case I didnt like it (14 days to decide) ,Some of you may know im a huge CRT fan but figured Id update my thoughts on LCDs by trying out the latest and greatest (a bit on the small side tho).

Anyhow I have it sitting next to my CRT (GDM-FW900) and must say this LCD has a *very* nice image when browing the web and very clean text (Bright / vibrant / colorful)..I also love the clear / glossy screen .. no more grainy / gritty look like my previous LCD (Dell 2001FP) and whats this I see?? A Sharpness adjustment?? Why hasnt every PC monitor ever made had this feature? Ive been wondering that for years and its great to see it available on this monitor.

I searched through various threads looking for ideal picture settings and it seems using 50% contrast & Standard DV mode is key for elimating any banding effects, big bonus there, so far so good.

Backlight bleed is present but only noticable when looking at a black screen and its a very small portion on the extreme left of the screen, doesnt seem bad enough to call it defective, Not a single dead pixel that I can see.

Motion blur? Not bad ,definately better than my last LCD , although its definately there when comparing it to the CRT ,for example moving the mouse pointer quickly around the screen has a 'skipping' & slightly blurred look on the LCD while its perfectly fluid without the skipping / missing frames effect on the CRT. But I ran around in Doom 3 & Half Life 2 and the motion blur was pretty minimal here.

Input lag? I cant notice any when comparing visually , moving the mouse around / opening closing windows appears perfectly in sync between the CRT & LCD, I decided to try the stop watch test and found that there IS lag but it varies , A few shots showed perfect sync (!?) while the worst shot showed 32ms lag, seems the average was around 12ms lag, not a huge deal.
I uploaded the results here if anyone wants to see , ill probably add more pics later: Link ,I had the monitors in Clone mode when doing the test. (both running 1680x1050 @ 60hz)

Viewing angle is pretty darn good on this monitor , You had to look directly at my 2001FP otherwise there was a shift in picture attributes, this NEC gives you enough freedom to view it at a slight angle without any big loss in quality, Of course its still no where near a CRT in this department but under most conditions the viewing angle is fine.

Black levels ... Depressing pretty much sums this one up Viewing movies & games with my CRT as a refrence shows the LCD as having pretty poor black levels... no matter what settings I try ..am I missing something here or do all lcd's perform this poorly here? Using the Game DV mode prevents the loss of details in dark areas but at the same time it causes banding to appear and makes the actual deepness of blacks even worse, Standard mode with Advanced DV enabled seems to be the best balance but the black levels are still a medium grey at best ,some areas look washed out because of it Browsing the web shows awesome black levels the problem is when you display a lot of darkness (Doom 3 / Condemned / FEAR / Just about *any* Movie).

Component inputs - So far ive only tried my Nintendo Wii over Component but must say the 480P output on this monitor is very poor , the image is blurry and motion blur is a lot more evident vs. running native resolution. Wii looks *infinitely* better connected to my XBR CRT HDTV @ 480P with the same cables, But Ive heard Xbox360 looks pretty damn good on this monitor (360's resolution is a lot closer to native so im sure it does) , ill try it out later.

Guess thats it for now , The 20WMGX2 has a very impressive image overall even when compared to my FW900 (although the LCD looks alil small sitting next to it) ,if only the Black levels were a lot better.. If I keep this LCD it looks like ill be using the CRT for gaming & movies and the LCD for the rest, Any ideas on improving black levels would be appreciated ,Although I doubt theres much I can do here.

 

[xtknight]

The black levels on my 20WMGX2 are about 0.25 nits which is quite good for an LCD. They can go down to 0.16 nits with Advanced DVM on. But compared to the 2001FP you used it should be a world of difference, unless you got an unlucky unit. How does it compare?

You should have the brightness quite low on this LCD and the contrast high. Personally I have mine at 12.5 brightness, 97.0 contrast. I've had it at 8 brightness, 97 contrast before. You have to adjust the gamma a bit, though I have a colorimeter so high contrast settings don't clip the end of the grayscale with proper adjustment.

Though anything above 50 contrast (at ~10 brightness) without gamma adjustment is going to look bad.

480p will look like crap on any fixed-pixel display (assuming it has a higher resolution). You should use standard DV mode with advanced DVM on if you don't have a calibrator (in the latter case I would turn ADVM off). That can improve black levels and saturation.

You'll probably want to use sRGB gamma mode on the LCD (as opposed to native) if you don't have a calibrator. Photo DV mode lowers the black level a bit and works fairly well for games but can cause banding. It's worth the trade-off unless banding is prevalent (I hardly see it anywhere).

I have some calibrated gamma profiles you can try, by the way, though settings may vary per unit.

 

[Zebo]

Nice review. I would try some of xknights settings and profiles. As far as the slight back light bleed...give it a week some users report it going away somehow after a week..if not get a new one.

 

[JRW]

Originally posted by: xtknight
The black levels on my 20WMGX2 are about 0.25 nits which is quite good for an LCD. They can go down to 0.16 nits with Advanced DVM on. But compared to the 2001FP you used it should be a world of difference, unless you got an unlucky unit. How does it compare?

You should have the brightness quite low on this LCD and the contrast high. Personally I have mine at 12.5 brightness, 97.0 contrast. I've had it at 8 brightness, 97 contrast before. You have to adjust the gamma a bit, though I have a colorimeter so high contrast settings don't clip the end of the grayscale with proper adjustment.

Though anything above 50 contrast (at ~10 brightness) without gamma adjustment is going to look bad.

480p will look like crap on any fixed-pixel display (assuming it has a higher resolution). You should use standard DV mode with advanced DVM on if you don't have a calibrator (in the latter case I would turn ADVM off). That can improve black levels and saturation.

You'll probably want to use sRGB gamma mode on the LCD (as opposed to native) if you don't have a calibrator. Photo DV mode lowers the black level a bit and works fairly well for games but can cause banding. It's worth the trade-off unless banding is prevalent (I hardly see it anywhere).

I have some calibrated gamma profiles you can try, by the way, though settings may vary per unit.

Sure Ill give those profiles a try ,Currently using whatever XP uses by default. The black levels arent much better than my 2001FP , I see the same blue'ish / milky appearance in dark areas of games / movies but desktop / web browsing looks great. You think its possible I got a bad unit? I have my videocard's gamma / brightness etc. all at default.

 

[xtknight]

I don't see any blue or milkyness that you speak of. I saw plenty of it on my old ViewSonic VP930b, but that's what I loved so much about this LCD: it's 95% absent. Mine's just a pure dark gray (maybe with just slightly whitish blue tinge to it). Running at anything above 25 brightness will result in poorer black levels though.

It would help if you could get a couple screenshots (video card screenshots) of some dark games so I can load the images on my unit and see how they look. I have hardly any dark material with which to test. Or you can pick out some Doom 3 screenshots on the web that you find reproduce poorly on your unit (that would be the best as there would be no game gamma differences).

I'll give you the profile I'm using now.
Settings:

Brightness: 21.0
Contrast: 93.0
Sharpness: 16.6
Advanced DV Mode: Off
DV Mode: Standard
RGB: User ( below are calibrated for 6500K )
..R: 77.6
..G: 74.9
..B: 78.4

Gamma: ICC profile here: http://lcdresource.com/tools/nec20wgx2_20070107_6500k.icm

Apply with software such as xcalib. The NVIDIA control panel does not load ICCs correctly.

Note games load their own gamma and there's not much you can do about that. I've tried forcing the ICC profile to load and it turned out not even looking that great so I'd just leave games be.

OK, I take that back, there's a tad bit of that milkyness at the above settings. Hardly any, but some. I'll try and get you a profile better suited to dark games. Having ADVM on really helps for that and you're not worried about dead-on color accuracy in games anyway. The same settings with a brightness of 10 and ADVM on appears to eliminate the effect for the most part in pure darkness. Just make sure you're not looking at the monitor from another angle or it will appear again (purple milkish). That's just what happens with S-IPS.

The way I'd describe a full black screen at the first settings I posted in this post:

Pure, very dark gray with 1/50th tint of purple in lower right. Can't even tell if the purple is just from me looking from a slightly different angle or what. As with any LCD though, it is dark gray, not black. At least it's not medium blue though. It won't be until OLEDs that we have good blacks again.

 

[JRW]

Thanks for the profile and settings that made everything look nicer in general ,however im still in the same boat with the black levels.. I think its just me not being used to LCD's way of displaying blacks, I did discover that having a lamp on helps with the deepness of the black levels ..Im used to turning off all the lights when watching movies on the CRT.

I posted this pic on hardocp: Link

Originally posted by: xtknight

It would help if you could get a couple screenshots (video card screenshots) of some dark games so I can load the images on my unit and see how they look. I have hardly any dark material with which to test.

Heres one shot you could test, Try downloading it so you can view fullscreen and also turn off any lights in the room, for me the LCD side has a slightly washed out look to it (grey'ish) while on the CRT it's a nice deep black , this makes the whole scene look much nicer when combined with the bright lighting effects on the walls / poles etc.Link

 

[CP5670]

I think its just me not being used to LCD's way of displaying blacks, I did discover that having a lamp on helps with the deepness of the black levels ..Im used to turning off all the lights when watching movies on the CRT.

This is a peculiarity of the glossy coating and isn't a general LCD thing. The coating has no effect at all in a pitch dark room but the reflections you get with any sort of ambient light actually seem to make the blacks look deeper. The more ambient light you have, the more prominent the reflections are but the deeper the blacks get. I've noticed the same thing on my 90GX2.

 

[JRW]

Looks like I spotted a dead pixel? Its black and wont wipe off , I honestly dont think it was there yesterday, heres a closeup shot: Click (dot towards the top)

 

[LittleNemoNES]

Originally posted by: JRW
Looks like I spotted a dead pixel? Its black and wont wipe off , I honestly dont think it was there yesterday, heres a closeup shot: Click (dot towards the top)

could be a smudge. I was so paranoid about dead pixels when I first got mine that I thought I saw one...used a moist (water) paper towel and it came right off

xtknight, your settings are working well for me this time... Everything seems more vibrant! Thanks

 

[Imyourzero]

Originally posted by: CP5670

I think its just me not being used to LCD's way of displaying blacks, I did discover that having a lamp on helps with the deepness of the black levels ..Im used to turning off all the lights when watching movies on the CRT.

This is a peculiarity of the glossy coating and isn't a general LCD thing. The coating has no effect at all in a pitch dark room but the reflections you get with any sort of ambient light actually seem to make the blacks look deeper. The more ambient light you have, the more prominent the reflections are but the deeper the blacks get. I've noticed the same thing on my 90GX2.

Speaking of the 90GX2, are there any comparisons between it and other displays with the OptiClear (or equivalent) coating? After reading lots of impressions of beautiful & vivid colors I've almost decided that I want my next LCD to have a glossy coating, but I can't find much info that's very useful. Compared to the 20WMGX2, the 90GX2 is apparently faster but isn't a true 8-bit panel, nor is it widescreen.

Is there a list of monitors with this type of coating? I know that lots of laptops are available with the glossy coating now, but I haven't been able to find many desktop displays that aren't matte other than the NECs discussed here. I'm sure they're out there, as I think I saw some HP displays at Sam's Club that had the glossy coating, but sometimes it's hard to find good reviews other than that CNET garbage...

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: JRW
Thanks for the profile and settings that made everything look nicer in general ,however im still in the same boat with the black levels.. I think its just me not being used to LCD's way of displaying blacks, I did discover that having a lamp on helps with the deepness of the black levels ..Im used to turning off all the lights when watching movies on the CRT.

I posted this pic on hardocp: Link

Originally posted by: xtknight

It would help if you could get a couple screenshots (video card screenshots) of some dark games so I can load the images on my unit and see how they look. I have hardly any dark material with which to test.

Heres one shot you could test, Try downloading it so you can view fullscreen and also turn off any lights in the room, for me the LCD side has a slightly washed out look to it (grey'ish) while on the CRT it's a nice deep black , this makes the whole scene look much nicer when combined with the bright lighting effects on the walls / poles etc.Link

I don't see much to complain about with my room completely dark showing that picture. Nope, not pitch black (0 nits), but 0.24 nits. Dark areas appear very saturated to me especially with advanced DVM on and the brightness down. While not as dark as a CRT, I could barely notice unless they were right next to each other.

 

[JRW]

Originally posted by: gersson

Originally posted by: JRW
Looks like I spotted a dead pixel? Its black and wont wipe off , I honestly dont think it was there yesterday, heres a closeup shot: Click (dot towards the top)

could be a smudge. I was so paranoid about dead pixels when I first got mine that I thought I saw one...used a moist (water) paper towel and it came right off

Its definately a dead pixel I was going to exchange it for another but they're out of stock according to the online inventory check, I still havent decided if I wanna keep it or not . My only main gripe at this point would be its size. Whenever NEC decides to come out with a 24" or larger version of this monitor Ill definately be interested.

Ever since I started using a lamp behind the monitor it made a big improvment in picture quality / black levels, Its also interesting how the Opticlear screen absorbs any light you shine on it ..I even pointed my Mag flashlight directly at it and still no halo's visible on the screen itself (other than the flashlights reflection due to glossy screen).

 

[JRW]

Originally posted by: xtknight

I don't see much to complain about with my room completely dark showing that picture. Nope, not pitch black (0 nits), but 0.24 nits. Dark areas appear very saturated to me especially with advanced DVM on and the brightness down. While not as dark as a CRT, I could barely notice unless they were right next to each other.[/quote]

Hrm thats interesting ..in complete darkness the differance was quite noticable between my crt & lcd even with advanced dvm on, were you viewing the shot so that there was NO white borders etc. present? It was all black / fullscreen here.

 

[xtknight]

You're right. When you eliminate the white border, that's when you start to see the gray a lot more. I'll tell you what: I'll calibrate my CRT to similar settings and run through a full comparison. I'm going to be as honest as I can on this as I know the NEC is still not perfect.

Just briefly running around in Wolfenstein, I prefer the LCD's image for the most part. Stuff looks more natural and lit like it's supposed to be. The CRT (HP M50 shadow mask) is actually probably higher contrast, but the image is rather harsh and unlit in some places. Of course, in practically pitch black games there's no contest.

With ambient light around, the 20WMGX2's coating actually makes the black looker blacker than on the CRT! Contrast also looks superior, even on the dark Doom 3 screenshot you linked me. Incredible. Of course, with the lights off, that advantage quickly diminishes.

More results to come later. It's time for me to have some fun and actually game (gee haven't done that in months).

 

[CP5670]

Originally posted by: Imyourzero

Originally posted by: CP5670

I think its just me not being used to LCD's way of displaying blacks, I did discover that having a lamp on helps with the deepness of the black levels ..Im used to turning off all the lights when watching movies on the CRT.

This is a peculiarity of the glossy coating and isn't a general LCD thing. The coating has no effect at all in a pitch dark room but the reflections you get with any sort of ambient light actually seem to make the blacks look deeper. The more ambient light you have, the more prominent the reflections are but the deeper the blacks get. I've noticed the same thing on my 90GX2.

Speaking of the 90GX2, are there any comparisons between it and other displays with the OptiClear (or equivalent) coating? After reading lots of impressions of beautiful & vivid colors I've almost decided that I want my next LCD to have a glossy coating, but I can't find much info that's very useful. Compared to the 20WMGX2, the 90GX2 is apparently faster but isn't a true 8-bit panel, nor is it widescreen.

Is there a list of monitors with this type of coating? I know that lots of laptops are available with the glossy coating now, but I haven't been able to find many desktop displays that aren't matte other than the NECs discussed here. I'm sure they're out there, as I think I saw some HP displays at Sam's Club that had the glossy coating, but sometimes it's hard to find good reviews other than that CNET garbage...

Yeah, it's still fairly rare on desktop LCDs. The only ones I know of are the NEC GX and GX2 lines and some of the Acer models. All of the NECs are 6-bit TNs except the 20WMGX2, although they're actually very good for TNs and have better viewing angles and other characteristics than most other TNs I have seen.

Acer tends to have a number of very similar models, some with the coating and some without it, and it can be hard to tell which ones have it since they barely advertise it at all. The Acer 2032WA (20" WS) is supposed to have it and has an 8-bit panel of some sort. I've only heard one user opinion on it, but it was very positive. It's fairly hard to find in the US though and is about $480, at which price you might as well spend $80 more and get the 20WMGX2.

Sony also used to have a few in the 17/19" range, but I don't know if they're manufactured anymore and they're quite slow by today's standards in any case. I haven't heard of any HP models with it, but they may be rebadged versions of one of these.

 

[JRW]

Originally posted by: xtknight
You're right. When you eliminate the white border, that's when you start to see the gray a lot more. I'll tell you what: I'll calibrate my CRT to similar settings and run through a full comparison. I'm going to be as honest as I can on this as I know the NEC is still not perfect.

Just briefly running around in Wolfenstein, I prefer the LCD's image for the most part. Stuff looks more natural and lit like it's supposed to be. The CRT (HP M50 shadow mask) is actually probably higher contrast, but the image is rather harsh and unlit in some places. Of course, in practically pitch black games there's no contest.

With ambient light around, the 20WMGX2's coating actually makes the black looker blacker than on the CRT! Contrast also looks superior, even on the dark Doom 3 screenshot you linked me. Incredible. Of course, with the lights off, that advantage quickly diminishes.

More results to come later. It's time for me to have some fun and actually game (gee haven't done that in months).

Yea I see pretty much the same results here, having a light on really helps the LCD (and at the same time can hurt the CRTs pic quality),Although Shadow mask based CRTs are known to be 'dull' and darker in comparison to an Aperture grille CRT (Trinitron) Im sure your LCD is making it look really bad in most situations, its not as drastic when comparing LCD to Trinitron.

But theres no denying with some surrounding light present this LCD has an outstanding picture ,the colors are very rich and deep without looking over saturated and the black levels are suprisingly deep as well.

Im curious do you have your videocard's gamma setting turned up at all? mine is currently defaulted (still using your profile / settings tho) ive noticed when comparing shadow details in movies the LCD is losing some details compared to the CRT (although not nearly as bad as the 2001FP)

 

[Imyourzero]

Originally posted by: CP5670

Originally posted by: Imyourzero

Originally posted by: CP5670

I think its just me not being used to LCD's way of displaying blacks, I did discover that having a lamp on helps with the deepness of the black levels ..Im used to turning off all the lights when watching movies on the CRT.

This is a peculiarity of the glossy coating and isn't a general LCD thing. The coating has no effect at all in a pitch dark room but the reflections you get with any sort of ambient light actually seem to make the blacks look deeper. The more ambient light you have, the more prominent the reflections are but the deeper the blacks get. I've noticed the same thing on my 90GX2.

Speaking of the 90GX2, are there any comparisons between it and other displays with the OptiClear (or equivalent) coating? After reading lots of impressions of beautiful & vivid colors I've almost decided that I want my next LCD to have a glossy coating, but I can't find much info that's very useful. Compared to the 20WMGX2, the 90GX2 is apparently faster but isn't a true 8-bit panel, nor is it widescreen.

Is there a list of monitors with this type of coating? I know that lots of laptops are available with the glossy coating now, but I haven't been able to find many desktop displays that aren't matte other than the NECs discussed here. I'm sure they're out there, as I think I saw some HP displays at Sam's Club that had the glossy coating, but sometimes it's hard to find good reviews other than that CNET garbage...

Yeah, it's still fairly rare on desktop LCDs. The only ones I know of are the NEC GX and GX2 lines and some of the Acer models. All of the NECs are 6-bit TNs except the 20WMGX2, although they're actually very good for TNs and have better viewing angles and other characteristics than most other TNs I have seen.

Acer tends to have a number of very similar models, some with the coating and some without it, and it can be hard to tell which ones have it since they barely advertise it at all. The Acer 2032WA (20" WS) is supposed to have it and has an 8-bit panel of some sort. I've only heard one user opinion on it, but it was very positive. It's fairly hard to find in the US though and is about $480, at which price you might as well spend $80 more and get the 20WMGX2.

Sony also used to have a few in the 17/19" range, but I don't know if they're manufactured anymore and they're quite slow by today's standards in any case. I haven't heard of any HP models with it, but they may be rebadged versions of one of these.

Hmm, thanks for the info. Out of those, I'd probably go with one of the NECs. The price on the 90GX2 is so tempting but I already have a 2001FP and would be interested in making the move to a widescreen monitor. Too bad the 20WMGX2 is so much more expensive than the 90GX2...I'd just have a hard time forking out nearly $600 for a 20" NEC when I can get the Dell 24" for roughly the same price. Maybe seeing the picture quality on the NEC would change my mind

 

[LittleNemoNES]

Originally posted by: Imyourzero

Originally posted by: CP5670

Originally posted by: Imyourzero

Originally posted by: CP5670

I think its just me not being used to LCD's way of displaying blacks, I did discover that having a lamp on helps with the deepness of the black levels ..Im used to turning off all the lights when watching movies on the CRT.

This is a peculiarity of the glossy coating and isn't a general LCD thing. The coating has no effect at all in a pitch dark room but the reflections you get with any sort of ambient light actually seem to make the blacks look deeper. The more ambient light you have, the more prominent the reflections are but the deeper the blacks get. I've noticed the same thing on my 90GX2.

Speaking of the 90GX2, are there any comparisons between it and other displays with the OptiClear (or equivalent) coating? After reading lots of impressions of beautiful & vivid colors I've almost decided that I want my next LCD to have a glossy coating, but I can't find much info that's very useful. Compared to the 20WMGX2, the 90GX2 is apparently faster but isn't a true 8-bit panel, nor is it widescreen.

Is there a list of monitors with this type of coating? I know that lots of laptops are available with the glossy coating now, but I haven't been able to find many desktop displays that aren't matte other than the NECs discussed here. I'm sure they're out there, as I think I saw some HP displays at Sam's Club that had the glossy coating, but sometimes it's hard to find good reviews other than that CNET garbage...

Yeah, it's still fairly rare on desktop LCDs. The only ones I know of are the NEC GX and GX2 lines and some of the Acer models. All of the NECs are 6-bit TNs except the 20WMGX2, although they're actually very good for TNs and have better viewing angles and other characteristics than most other TNs I have seen.

Acer tends to have a number of very similar models, some with the coating and some without it, and it can be hard to tell which ones have it since they barely advertise it at all. The Acer 2032WA (20" WS) is supposed to have it and has an 8-bit panel of some sort. I've only heard one user opinion on it, but it was very positive. It's fairly hard to find in the US though and is about $480, at which price you might as well spend $80 more and get the 20WMGX2.

Sony also used to have a few in the 17/19" range, but I don't know if they're manufactured anymore and they're quite slow by today's standards in any case. I haven't heard of any HP models with it, but they may be rebadged versions of one of these.

Hmm, thanks for the info. Out of those, I'd probably go with one of the NECs. The price on the 90GX2 is so tempting but I already have a 2001FP and would be interested in making the move to a widescreen monitor. Too bad the 20WMGX2 is so much more expensive than the 90GX2...I'd just have a hard time forking out nearly $600 for a 20" NEC when I can get the Dell 24" for roughly the same price. Maybe seeing the picture quality on the NEC would change my mind

The ol' quality vs quantity deal.

 

[CP5670]

Originally posted by: Imyourzero
Hmm, thanks for the info. Out of those, I'd probably go with one of the NECs. The price on the 90GX2 is so tempting but I already have a 2001FP and would be interested in making the move to a widescreen monitor. Too bad the 20WMGX2 is so much more expensive than the 90GX2...I'd just have a hard time forking out nearly $600 for a 20" NEC when I can get the Dell 24" for roughly the same price. Maybe seeing the picture quality on the NEC would change my mind

I think the NEC is definitely a better choice among those two. The coating blows away the standard matte screens in my opinion. I personally wouldn't consider any LCD without it. (the 2407 also has some issues of its own with banding and input lag)

 

[Imyourzero]

Originally posted by: gersson

Originally posted by: Imyourzero

Originally posted by: CP5670

Originally posted by: Imyourzero

Originally posted by: CP5670

I think its just me not being used to LCD's way of displaying blacks, I did discover that having a lamp on helps with the deepness of the black levels ..Im used to turning off all the lights when watching movies on the CRT.

This is a peculiarity of the glossy coating and isn't a general LCD thing. The coating has no effect at all in a pitch dark room but the reflections you get with any sort of ambient light actually seem to make the blacks look deeper. The more ambient light you have, the more prominent the reflections are but the deeper the blacks get. I've noticed the same thing on my 90GX2.

Speaking of the 90GX2, are there any comparisons between it and other displays with the OptiClear (or equivalent) coating? After reading lots of impressions of beautiful & vivid colors I've almost decided that I want my next LCD to have a glossy coating, but I can't find much info that's very useful. Compared to the 20WMGX2, the 90GX2 is apparently faster but isn't a true 8-bit panel, nor is it widescreen.

Is there a list of monitors with this type of coating? I know that lots of laptops are available with the glossy coating now, but I haven't been able to find many desktop displays that aren't matte other than the NECs discussed here. I'm sure they're out there, as I think I saw some HP displays at Sam's Club that had the glossy coating, but sometimes it's hard to find good reviews other than that CNET garbage...

Yeah, it's still fairly rare on desktop LCDs. The only ones I know of are the NEC GX and GX2 lines and some of the Acer models. All of the NECs are 6-bit TNs except the 20WMGX2, although they're actually very good for TNs and have better viewing angles and other characteristics than most other TNs I have seen.

Acer tends to have a number of very similar models, some with the coating and some without it, and it can be hard to tell which ones have it since they barely advertise it at all. The Acer 2032WA (20" WS) is supposed to have it and has an 8-bit panel of some sort. I've only heard one user opinion on it, but it was very positive. It's fairly hard to find in the US though and is about $480, at which price you might as well spend $80 more and get the 20WMGX2.

Sony also used to have a few in the 17/19" range, but I don't know if they're manufactured anymore and they're quite slow by today's standards in any case. I haven't heard of any HP models with it, but they may be rebadged versions of one of these.

Hmm, thanks for the info. Out of those, I'd probably go with one of the NECs. The price on the 90GX2 is so tempting but I already have a 2001FP and would be interested in making the move to a widescreen monitor. Too bad the 20WMGX2 is so much more expensive than the 90GX2...I'd just have a hard time forking out nearly $600 for a 20" NEC when I can get the Dell 24" for roughly the same price. Maybe seeing the picture quality on the NEC would change my mind

The ol' quality vs quantity deal.

True. And why even fret about the 24" Dell for $600? I mean that much moolah will also score you a 32" LCD TV.

 

[Imyourzero]

Originally posted by: CP5670

Originally posted by: Imyourzero
Hmm, thanks for the info. Out of those, I'd probably go with one of the NECs. The price on the 90GX2 is so tempting but I already have a 2001FP and would be interested in making the move to a widescreen monitor. Too bad the 20WMGX2 is so much more expensive than the 90GX2...I'd just have a hard time forking out nearly $600 for a 20" NEC when I can get the Dell 24" for roughly the same price. Maybe seeing the picture quality on the NEC would change my mind

I think the NEC is definitely a better choice among those two. The coating blows away the standard matte screens in my opinion. I personally wouldn't consider any LCD without it. (the 2407 also has some issues of its own with banding and input lag)

Yeah I have read some discussions regarding the banding and input lag, but I was under the impression that most of that had been addressed in the newest revision (A02?)

It seems that you have to succumb to the luck of the draw when purchasing a Dell monitor, because I've seen posts from people that say the 2405/07 is a fantastic display and others who have sent them back in disgust. Or maybe as with ghosting, some people are more prone to notice banding and input lag. I don't know...but if you manage to get a GOOD one and aren't super picky, the 2407 gives you a lot of real estate and a decent response time for the money.

But I digress...this thread is about the 20WMGX2, not anything from Dell. I'm almost positive that I'd still go with the 20WMGX2, though, simply because you don't have to "play the lottery" when buying an NEC product. The quality seems to be far more consistent than with Dell's recent offerings.

 

[xtknight]

Well I further analyzed the image quality difference between the 20WMGX2 and HP M50 CRT. Both were calibrated to 120 nits and 6500K/sRGB, though neither could use its gamma profile in-game.

The NEC was definitely more "lit" in general. Dark details were revealed better. I still felt that the contrast between colors was superior on the CRT. It seemed to reveal subtle changes in gray better as well. Some effects ended up looking better on the CRT due to the slight blur. However I felt the CRT had a harsh look to it. It did for the most part look better at default gamma settings than the LCD. The NEC, using the 160 nits w/ gamma profile, seemed to have better between-color contrast due to higher brightness.

The better-lightedness (on both 120/160 nit settings on the LCD) makes it easier to see enemies (considerably better for gaming IMO). What helps the black level the most is turning on Advanced DV. At times, the LCD looked more natural. It looked more like I was looking out of a window at times, while the CRT seemed to provide a more utopian cinematic experience. The LCD just couldn't produce the pure gray stormy sky in Wolfenstein though. The contrast on the CRT I had was very high. Nits at black were reported as 0.00. Considering the precision of the colorimeter was 0.01 nits (at least the readout is), that's 12000:1 folks! Differences diminished with some ambient light around, and I preferred the LCD more and more with more ambient light.

Besides just focusing on image quality, the LCD was much easier on the eyes and wow you don't know what you're missing without widescreen until you put a 4:3 aspect monitor beside a 16:10.

The only gamma settings I'm using are in my profiles. I never adjust video driver options. During game, both LCDs used a gamma of 1.0 anyway.

All I can say is I can't wait for OLED. That's how I am...always demanding more when it comes to monitors. OLED doesn't need a backlight so no light can leak through. That will be what brings that "between-color contrast" advantage back to the flat panel side which I can honestly say I miss greatly for those dark gaming times.

 

[CP5670]

The better-lightedness (on both 120/160 nit settings on the LCD) makes it easier to see enemies (considerably better for gaming IMO).

Well, this isn't necessarily a good thing. You can always crank up the ingame brightness or gamma setting and will be able to see even in areas that are normally almost pitch dark, but it won't look good. (although it's usually a good idea in online games nonetheless)

I would also like to see some of the new display techs though. OLED and especially SED almost seem to have fallen off the radar. You hardly hear anything about them these days. I don't know whether they're running into manufacturing delays or if there simply isn't enough demand for displays with premium image quality.

 

[JRW]

Originally posted by: xtknight
Well I further analyzed the image quality difference between the 20WMGX2 and HP M50 CRT. Both were calibrated to 120 nits and 6500K/sRGB, though neither could use its gamma profile in-game.

The NEC was definitely more "lit" in general. Dark details were revealed better. I still felt that the contrast between colors was superior on the CRT. It seemed to reveal subtle changes in gray better as well. Some effects ended up looking better on the CRT due to the slight blur. However I felt the CRT had a harsh look to it. It did for the most part look better at default gamma settings than the LCD. The NEC, using the 160 nits w/ gamma profile, seemed to have better between-color contrast due to higher brightness.

The better-lightedness (on both 120/160 nit settings on the LCD) makes it easier to see enemies (considerably better for gaming IMO). What helps the black level the most is turning on Advanced DV. At times, the LCD looked more natural. It looked more like I was looking out of a window at times, while the CRT seemed to provide a more utopian cinematic experience. The LCD just couldn't produce the pure gray stormy sky in Wolfenstein though. The contrast on the CRT I had was very high. Nits at black were reported as 0.00. Considering the precision of the colorimeter was 0.01 nits (at least the readout is), that's 12000:1 folks! Differences diminished with some ambient light around, and I preferred the LCD more and more with more ambient light.

Besides just focusing on image quality, the LCD was much easier on the eyes and wow you don't know what you're missing without widescreen until you put a 4:3 aspect monitor beside a 16:10.

The only gamma settings I'm using are in my profiles. I never adjust video driver options. During game, both LCDs used a gamma of 1.0 anyway.

All I can say is I can't wait for OLED. That's how I am...always demanding more when it comes to monitors. OLED doesn't need a backlight so no light can leak through. That will be what brings that "between-color contrast" advantage back to the flat panel side which I can honestly say I miss greatly for those dark gaming times.

Hrm ya the colors between my CRT & LCD are very differant in some aspects ..I wasnt sure which one is 'correct' but when comparing Movies (even 720P HD rips) the CRT seems to have the edge in color range and especially shadow details during darker scenes. When watching movies at night w/ the lights the CRT triumphs, But for web browsing & certain games the LCD is awesome. I may just have to keep both monitors and use them accordingly.

I hooked up my Xbox360 to the NEC tonight and was fairly disapointed ... I tried 720p / 1080i & 1080p (1080p wouldnt work properly ,the screen turns green) and they all had a 'soft' look to them even when attempting to adjust the Sharpness, It looks much cleaner on my FW900 & XBR960 CRTs , I guess the fact Xbox360 runs out of the LCDs native resolution is the main factor there.

 

[JRW]

Just a quick update ,I decided to try Xbox360 on the NEC via VGA cables and the differance was *MUCH* better than using Component. I went through all of the resolutions available , 1080P works but it has some overscan issues plus it doesnt look as 'crisp' vs. other resolutions, 1280x720 (720p) looked the best. I also found it interesting that VGA & Component have a "Black Level" adjustment on the monitor but its not available when using PC via DVI, Any idea why they did that?