MalfurionStormrage
Member
Samsung now offers their LCDs with a 0 pixel dead policy. I prefer ViewSonic over Samsung, but until all the LCD manufacturers change their dead pixel policy it will be Samsung all the way for me...
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
No more thinking, just tell me what 20" lcd panel to buy
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
BlackPear1
Senior member
I don't think that it's the least bit ridiculous to to return a defective product, but I'm happy that some buyers will be satisfied with the ones I'm returning. I think that it's vital, given the number of panels with defects I've bought in the last year (4 out of 7), to buy from a vendor who will allow a return based on customer satisfaction rather than a predetermined number of defects as most manufacturers dictate (see THG's article on the subject a year or so ago).
I got 3 17" Sonys in a row last year with one or more stuck pixels and returned them all (Microcenter). I also purchased a Viewsonic 201 from Costco and returned it for pixel defects. It's a nice display and is still reasonably priced ($699) and I would have taken another as a replacement if they weren't out of stock at the time. Now I have a Dell 2001FP which arrived defect-free and I am happy with its performance. Dell's policy also allows a return for any reason.
My bottom line - before you buy, download and use either Passmark's Monitor Test 2.2 (shareware w/ free evaluation period) or Nokia's Monitor Test 2.0 (freeware) and be prepared to return any panel which is not satisfactory to you. I'm sure that you will be happy in the long run.
I got 3 17" Sonys in a row last year with one or more stuck pixels and returned them all (Microcenter). I also purchased a Viewsonic 201 from Costco and returned it for pixel defects. It's a nice display and is still reasonably priced ($699) and I would have taken another as a replacement if they weren't out of stock at the time. Now I have a Dell 2001FP which arrived defect-free and I am happy with its performance. Dell's policy also allows a return for any reason.
My bottom line - before you buy, download and use either Passmark's Monitor Test 2.2 (shareware w/ free evaluation period) or Nokia's Monitor Test 2.0 (freeware) and be prepared to return any panel which is not satisfactory to you. I'm sure that you will be happy in the long run.
I'd highly suggest a Dell 2405 FP... They've got a good return policy, it's just making them send a new one and not a refurb. I own a Nec 1765 and a Dell 2005 WFP... Both have no dead pixel problems. The dell does have some backlight bleeding in the lower corner, but that's only noticable with a pitch black background....
sparkyclarky
Platinum Member
Yeah, I've got a few on my 2001, and frankly they are completely unnoticeable unless you use a program to set the background to a uniform color (and then switch colors) and hunt them out. The pixels on that screen are tiny, and unless you happened to get a bunch in a cluster that were stuck on to some obnoxious color like green or blue, why the hell would you care? No normal human being at a normal 2-4 foot viewing distance from their monitor could possibly point out 2-3 dead pixels spread out on a large, high pixel density LCD. My 15 inch display is a different story however. The low pixel density combined with one stuck on pixel is noticeable and a bit annoying, but it's my secondary display, so I don't care all that much....
However, I wish the OP luck in his quest, even if I think he's being a bit unreasonable in his quest for the 'perfect' display.
ONly in Korea.
You don't have a valid argument.
Having a dead pixel is not the same as having a "scratch" on a tower or leaky caps on a MOBO. A scratch on a computer case has nothing to do with the technology. If i bought a LCD and it had a big scratch on it, i would bring it back as well.
Just like plasma's, LCD's do have draw backs. DEAD PIXELS come with the territory. Some get the "perfect" panel and some don't/
Why do you think Newegg only excepts products back with 8+ dead/stuck pixels? It would be EXTREMELY expensive to send back every damn LCD with 1 dead pxiel out of 2 million on a 20" screen.
I can't believe people actaully think a retail store should be willing to open up multiple boxes to check for a dead pixel.
BlackPear1
Senior member
I'm mystified about why you would be so committed to excusing defects in LCD panels. Didn't the manufacturers in their published specs tout, for example, "1280x1024 pixels", not "1280x1024 pixels minus a few that we couldn't get working properly"? Nobody is saying that the manufacturing technology is not complex, but why should a consumer be satisfied that his new LCD doesn't have the exact same level of functionality that the next buyer's does? If pixel defects don't bother you, for whatever reason, then it's logical for you to accept an imperfect LCD, but for others who just want what's been advertised it's not the least bit unreasonable to insist on receiving it.
sparkyclarky
Platinum Member
You're missing the point. In the vast majority of cases, they are getting what was advertised. That's why manufacturers and retailers put dead pixel return policies on these things. I've never seen (well, except for the one instance in this thread of Samsung) a manufacturer say that the consumer was guaranteed a perfect panel. They pretty much always have tolerance levels for dead pixels factored into selling the panels.
BlackPear1
Senior member
Actually my point, perhaps not clearly made, was that I don't think it's unreasonable for consumers to expect a 100% functional panel, regardless of the manufacturers' and retailers' levels of tolerance. Many manufacturers do seem to cite or duplicate the applicable ISO pixel defect standard in their warranty policies but those standards are buried in the warranty language, not included as an item in the product specs consumers see on websites or shelf cards when contemplating a purchase. The retailers are only concerned, and legitimately so, about customers' returned LCD's which they may not be able to return to the manufacturer because of their varying return policies or definitions of defective. The interesting part of this whole subject is that there doesn't seem to be broad agreement among manufacturers, sellers or consumers as to what constitutes "defective" in this product.
I guess when it comes to something like monitors, the definition of "defective" is different with each user. Personally, I don't think 1 stuck or dead pixel is defective, especially one as unoticable as the one I have. Other users may disagree. I kind of think of it like this. If I go into a a nice restaurant and order a $50 steak, and they cook it medium rare (after I CLEARLY I asked them to cook it MEDIUM-medium rare), I probably wouldn't send the steak back. The truth is, I probably wouldn't notice a difference in taste between either steak, it would all just be psychological. However, if the steak was burnt to a crisp, I would of course send it back and get another one, because the steak would not be at all satisfactory. Same thing with an LCD. If I get one with a messed up pixel, big deal! It's not worth going through the hassel of shipping it back and getting another one IMO, especially when you don't even know for sure that the replacement monitor will be any better than the first one. However, if the monitor has several dead pixels, or maybe some other issues (such as backlight bleeding, severe ghosting), then at that point the monitor is "defective", and not worth my money to use.
Thats just he way I feel about the matter.
Machine350
Senior member
I think it would be cool if Manufacturers offered rebates for dead pixels. That way, you don't have to go through the hassle of sending the monitor back, but you do get some compensation for not having a perfect monitor. I dunno, something like 2% of the purchase price per dead pixel. That would satisfy me if I had a dead pixel or two that I could live with. What do you guys think?
I understand how someone can be upset, especially when you drop lots of cash. But the consumer needs to understand that when you order an LCD, there is a good chance you could have 1 dead pixel. It is just part of the technology right now. While some manufactors will take it back, some won't.
If the consumer can't live with that possibility they should buy a CRT.
The argument is perfectly valid. Let say that a case manufacturer has crappy metal stamping equipment and every 10 case comes out with a scratch on it. If you follow the logic, that scratch is part of the technology. OR as you put, CASE SCRATCHES come with the territory. That is an asinine argument. (I could make a similar example of how LEAKY CAPS come with the mobo territory.) The only reason that dead pixels are that same as case scratches or leaky caps or any other defect, is that the monitor manufacturers have convinced you other wise.
You claim 1 dead pixel out of 2 million shouldn't be a big deal. Well lets look at it from the case stand point. My aluminum Lian-Li case is 210x450x490 mm If you do the math thats a surface area of 835800 square mms. Guess what there is not one single defective (scratched) mm in the whole lot.
You don't like my argument because you have gotten comfortable with that fact that case and mobo manufacturing has a low defect rate. Instead of working to improve the technology of LCD manufacturing, the manufacturers have convinced you to accept a defective product because, "Its part of the technology," and, "It comes with the territory."
You claim that it would be extremely expensive to send them all back. My point is they never should have left the factory floor to start with. There is no expense in sending back a broken product if you don't ship it to start with. The LCDs didn't develop dead pixels sitting on the shelf at NewEgg, or in transit. They left the factory that way.
Look at it this way, suppose the majority of consumers refused to accept any defects in LCDs or a law was passed or for some other reason, manufacturers had to throw out all LCDs except for ones that were perfect. Now the would drive the price of LCD through the roof. I have no idea what the defect rate is but lets say that its 75% with at least one dead pixel. In order to make the same profit, (throwing out 3 of every 4 LCDs) LCDs would cost 4 times as much. (Not including disposal costs for the 3 bad ones) Sales would drop. BUT here's the kicker, somebody, somewhere, at one of manufacturers would get off their butts and figure out how to improve the process to decrease the defect rate. As it stands with consumers accepting defective product, there is no incentive to fix the problem. Why would a manufacturer spend the R&D dollars to improve the product when they can make a profit selling a defective one. IMO if consumers had not accepted defective LCDs and the BS excuses when they first hit the market, that by now this problem would have been solved.
The bottom line is this. I have worked in various manufacturering operations over the years. ALL of them have a defect rate. The defective products hit the trash. Because it is wrong to knowingly sell a defective product. Every heard of quality control? Of course this cuts into the profit margin. And at every operation I have been at, one of the primary objectives was to decrease the defect rate in order to increase profitability. No one ever stood up in a meeting and said, "How can we get our consumers to buy our products and accept the defective ones if they happen to get one?"
Why are LCD manufacturers any different?
sparkyclarky
Platinum Member
Significant amount of money will never be put in to making LCDs 100% perfect. It would never be economically feasible given the complexities of the manufacturing process. It makes much, much more sense for manufacturers to work on developing next gen technologies such as OLED, which most likely will wipe out the LCD market in a fairly short period of time (less than 5 years) after they are introduced. Mandating 100% pixel perfection would result in one of 3 things - manufacturers going broke or manufacturers switch to other technologies (which will have their own inherent flaws) or prices far, far higher than the modern LCD price. I, and the vast majority of the market would not be particularly fond of any of these ends. You seem to also lack a notion of what it means for a product to be defective. Defective, as taken from dictionary.com is "Marked by subnormal structure, function, intelligence, or behavior." You claim an LCD is defective when a single pixel is out/on, while manufacturers claim that there is an acceptable level of pixels which can be out before a screen is deemed defective. Let's analyze this and see who is being irrational.
Subnormal structure - the physical structure of the screen is intact with a dead pixel, so this doesn't go towards your side (or anybodys really, as structure is not what we're arguing)
Subnormal function - an LCD is completely usable and functional with a few dead pixels (especially in the case of high pixel density screens such as the 20" displays you are looking at), manufacturers feel that it takes a certain grouping of dead pixels or a certain number to make a screen less functional, and that claim is completely reasonable, as any person can use a screen just fine without any huge, major glaring defects staring them in the face
Intelligence clearly doesn't matter for a non-intelligent object, so this point is moot
Subnormal behavior - This implies a living being, so it is another moot point
So, this leaves us with the analysis of subnormal function. I'll grant you that this analysis relies upon a certain definition of normal, which the vast majority of the LCD buying public takes for granted, but you find fault with. However, my earlier arguments regarding the cost and complexity of changing this definition of 'normal' function within an LCD still stand. In the final analysis, LCDs with dead pixels are not by definition defective as you imply, and it is unreasonable to insist on a perfect panel.
Oh, and one last note on your computer case analogy. I guarantee you that it came from the factory with various scratches in non-critical areas (e.g. motherboard tray, inside the case). These scratches do not affect the function of the case (as opposed to something like a bent motherboard tray), and thus do not make the case defective. It is only when the function is affected in a critical way that the case could be considered defective, and you would then have a reason to demand another case.
I am with the OP on this one. I have gone through 5 Dell 2001FPs and all of them have had some sort of bad pixel problem. I still have 2 coming that hopefully will resolve the problem. I bought a Dell 2000FP back in 2000 and that monitor has worked great for me since (and still does).
I think of LCD manufacturing like computer processor manufacturing. When Intel and AMD are producing their chips, and the chip has transistors that fail at certain speeds, they have to sell the chip at a lower clock rate. Only a good quality yield will allow them to produce chips that do not fail at a certain speed. They are doing adequate quality control to identify where the threshold of failure is, and will not sell that chip at the higher clock speed if it can't handle it.
LCD manufacturers should do the same. If a bad pixel exists on the outer edge of a screen, they should cut the edges and sell the screen as smaller screen. They should not be selling an LCD with failures at the higher screen sizes/resolutions for the same reason Intel does not. Just my two cents, but I'd love to hear your responses.
I think of LCD manufacturing like computer processor manufacturing. When Intel and AMD are producing their chips, and the chip has transistors that fail at certain speeds, they have to sell the chip at a lower clock rate. Only a good quality yield will allow them to produce chips that do not fail at a certain speed. They are doing adequate quality control to identify where the threshold of failure is, and will not sell that chip at the higher clock speed if it can't handle it.
LCD manufacturers should do the same. If a bad pixel exists on the outer edge of a screen, they should cut the edges and sell the screen as smaller screen. They should not be selling an LCD with failures at the higher screen sizes/resolutions for the same reason Intel does not. Just my two cents, but I'd love to hear your responses.
pufftissue
Member
Hi,
Did not meant to generate such divided camps, although I'm firmly with the no dead pixels should be the norm side of things. When you buy a $5000 plasma tv, I think most people would demand a perfect screen, which inherently is what you feel should happen the higher the dollar value of an item. But logically there should be no reason why a $500 monitor has less "rights" to being made with zero dead pixels vs a $5000 plasma tv. Anyway, we stand where we stand.
Incidentally, I went with a viewsonic vp201s at fry's so that I could return just in case. It had 3 dead pixels that were pretty obvious. Back it went, so that's 5 monitors now for me. I don't know what I'm going to do.
Did not meant to generate such divided camps, although I'm firmly with the no dead pixels should be the norm side of things. When you buy a $5000 plasma tv, I think most people would demand a perfect screen, which inherently is what you feel should happen the higher the dollar value of an item. But logically there should be no reason why a $500 monitor has less "rights" to being made with zero dead pixels vs a $5000 plasma tv. Anyway, we stand where we stand.
Incidentally, I went with a viewsonic vp201s at fry's so that I could return just in case. It had 3 dead pixels that were pretty obvious. Back it went, so that's 5 monitors now for me. I don't know what I'm going to do.
Zebo
Elite Member
My requirements:
1. No, zero, zilch, nada, 100% none, dead pixels, and how do you guys deal with them? Am I too sensitive?
NEC MultiSync FP2141SB
2. 1600x1200 resolution or greater.
NEC MultiSync FP2141SB
3. 20" or 21"
NEC MultiSync FP2141SB
4. Good for 3d games, fast action sports, action movies, and can see the dark scenes in movies well, good for hdtv, i.e., it has to do everything well.
NEC MultiSync FP2141SB
6. Money is no object. If you told me the 23" $1300 lcd would be heaven, without the hassle, I'd do it. Seriously.
That's ok save your money, no LCD offers the gaming quality of $550 NEC MultiSync FP2141SB
1. No, zero, zilch, nada, 100% none, dead pixels, and how do you guys deal with them? Am I too sensitive?
NEC MultiSync FP2141SB
2. 1600x1200 resolution or greater.
NEC MultiSync FP2141SB
3. 20" or 21"
NEC MultiSync FP2141SB
4. Good for 3d games, fast action sports, action movies, and can see the dark scenes in movies well, good for hdtv, i.e., it has to do everything well.
NEC MultiSync FP2141SB
6. Money is no object. If you told me the 23" $1300 lcd would be heaven, without the hassle, I'd do it. Seriously.
That's ok save your money, no LCD offers the gaming quality of $550 NEC MultiSync FP2141SB
pufftissue
Member
LCD monitor # 6: still with dead pixels, # 7 is on the way.
Boze
Senior member
LCD is not the technology for either of you; stop wasting the following please:
Your time
Your money
The retailer's time
The retailer's money
The manufacturer's time
The manufacturer's money
May I suggest the NEC MultiSync FP2141SB?
And as a side note, you are contributing to driving up the cost of LCDs; LCD technology is a tried and true technology which has been in use for quite some time; consumers are no longer paying for the research and development behind large-scale screens as they once were; now we pay for other people who return 20+ LCDs because they lack the capacity to understand how truly complex a technology an 8-bit 20+ inch LCD panel really is. Please purchase a CRT so that I can continue to get my 20+ inch LCDs at insanely reasonable prices - I will even 'suffer' with ones with a few dead pixels.
Your time
Your money
The retailer's time
The retailer's money
The manufacturer's time
The manufacturer's money
May I suggest the NEC MultiSync FP2141SB?
And as a side note, you are contributing to driving up the cost of LCDs; LCD technology is a tried and true technology which has been in use for quite some time; consumers are no longer paying for the research and development behind large-scale screens as they once were; now we pay for other people who return 20+ LCDs because they lack the capacity to understand how truly complex a technology an 8-bit 20+ inch LCD panel really is. Please purchase a CRT so that I can continue to get my 20+ inch LCDs at insanely reasonable prices - I will even 'suffer' with ones with a few dead pixels.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
