The lcdresource.com site is back up. Hoping to get some new content on there soon but as always I get a little lazy. 
Yea, I don't list more since I'm more "picky" when it comes to that category. Even though there are some LCDs that are 'good' for photo editing, I generally list only 'great' ones to be safe.
It would probably help if you told me your budget even though I know it can be "adaptive" depending on the market. It just gives me something to go by. Also, do you want glossy or non-glossy? Size preferences? etc...
But then again, how often do you move your clock around? I get your point though, it can be very inconvenient in gaming, like in BF2 where you need to read somebody's name above their model. But these situations don't creep up too often and sometimes when they do the text is still reasonably readable at slower speeds so generally people just adapt to it.
Nothing will be on par with your Trinitron (or DiamondTron), but in the world of LCDs that's just something you'll have to get used to. It's not something I like either but I learn to accept that. Besides, there are many advantages of LCDs that I love.
The NEC 20WMGX2 I must say comes pretty darned close to a CRT in a lot of scenarios (it just doesn't quite have the black level of a CRT). And, color tracking/smoothness isn't always as good. I'm not sure if even OLEDs will match CRTs but SEDs/FEDs should since they are based on very similar technology. If OLED adopts >8-bit color technology then it may reach CRT quality, but the best property of CRTs is that their bit depth is arbitrary, or practically infinite. This gives you a smooth look that you don't get in LCDs or other digital displays that use only discrete values. I don't think even SEDs will have the same scaling quality but we'll see.
If response time is the main issue then I'll have to tell you that I can read some text while it's scrolling on the NEC even. The LG and HP certainly aren't old models, but they don't have as aggressive an overdrive algorithm as the NEC does.
Yea, I don't list more since I'm more "picky" when it comes to that category. Even though there are some LCDs that are 'good' for photo editing, I generally list only 'great' ones to be safe.
It would probably help if you told me your budget even though I know it can be "adaptive" depending on the market. It just gives me something to go by. Also, do you want glossy or non-glossy? Size preferences? etc...
But then again, how often do you move your clock around? I get your point though, it can be very inconvenient in gaming, like in BF2 where you need to read somebody's name above their model. But these situations don't creep up too often and sometimes when they do the text is still reasonably readable at slower speeds so generally people just adapt to it.
These monitors are now completely unacceptable to me. I have looked at the DigitalVersus site, and it looks like the NEC 20WMGX2 is one of the fastest monitors. I am going to find a store that has it on display so I can check it out. Hopefully all LCDs don't look like that.... The image quality of the LG and HP was alright though, but still not on par with my trinitron
Nothing will be on par with your Trinitron (or DiamondTron), but in the world of LCDs that's just something you'll have to get used to. It's not something I like either but I learn to accept that. Besides, there are many advantages of LCDs that I love.
The NEC 20WMGX2 I must say comes pretty darned close to a CRT in a lot of scenarios (it just doesn't quite have the black level of a CRT). And, color tracking/smoothness isn't always as good. I'm not sure if even OLEDs will match CRTs but SEDs/FEDs should since they are based on very similar technology. If OLED adopts >8-bit color technology then it may reach CRT quality, but the best property of CRTs is that their bit depth is arbitrary, or practically infinite. This gives you a smooth look that you don't get in LCDs or other digital displays that use only discrete values. I don't think even SEDs will have the same scaling quality but we'll see.
If response time is the main issue then I'll have to tell you that I can read some text while it's scrolling on the NEC even. The LG and HP certainly aren't old models, but they don't have as aggressive an overdrive algorithm as the NEC does.
Originally posted by: Jassi
I'm hoping somebody can answer this question so I don't create a useless thread.....
I bought this monitor. As usual, the company did not include a DVI cable. The specs state that it has a DVI-I female connector. What I would like to know is (since I have a BFG 7900gs), will the monitor accept a DVI-D cable? I plan on buying this cable if I can get away with it.
Thanks in advance
Jassi
Yeah it should be just fine. If you bought a DVI-A cable you could use analog also via the DVI-I, but I don't see the point in it. A DVI-D (what you linked) is what you want and it will fit right into a DVI-I through its digital pins.
Originally posted by: Teckno 187
My beloved CRT is starting to give up the ghost and I am looking to get (reluctantly) an LCD to replace it. The thing is that it seems that different LCD's are geared for different uses, office, multimedia, gaming, etc..
Heres a short list of the things I regularly use my computer for:
Desktop publishing and graphic design*
3D modeling and CAD
Gaming**
Text, word processing, net surfing, etc
Video editing and DVD authoring
Video and Movie viewing***
* Ive basically become a small scale graphic artist and print shop, so color is important
** 2d, 3d, just about every genre, and from somewhat recent to 10 year old 640x480 res classics
*** although I use my TV for anything I have on DVD, I got a ton of stuff on my hard drive
So as you can see, I demand a lot from my monitor and I'm sure you can understand I'm quite confused about what to get.
I'm looking for something around the range of 19-21 inches (leaning towards widescreen), and maybe around $500, although I wound be more then happy to pay less
Anything wrong with the NEC 20WMGX2? After rebates it fits very nicely in your budget at $430. It's the "all around" monitor as far as I'm concerned. Just as long as the glossy panel isn't a problem for your lighting environment. The $100 rebate is valid until Sep 01, I think. Check the top of the OP for the link.
Well, LPL makes modules for them: http://www.lgphilips-lcd.com/h...eng/prd/prd200_j_e.jsp
24", 26", 30".
Pretty much, yes. The upcoming NEC 24WMGX3 will use an S-PVA AFAIK. The current NEC LCD2490WUXi should use an S-IPS until the end of its life, but it's very expensive.
The LG L2300C might be another 23" S-IPS option but I don't know much about it. The Philips 230WP7NS is the more obvious S-IPS option. Or, the more expensive Apple Cinema Display 23".
The Acer X241Wsd is another TN, so like I say it has all the problems associated with TN panels.
Here's the response to your last question about Acer/Westinghouse LCDs:
The AL2416WD actually looks like a good deal but I don't tend to recommend Acer monitors too much. (Except the AL2051W where it's the only one in its class that uses a P-MVA panel any longer.) Their support isn't too good and it lacks a lot of video inputs that other 24" LCDs have. I bet it's missing some scaling options too, and there's just not that much info on it.
The AL2416WBSD is a TN, and so it will exhibit all TN characteristics. I've already seen one 24" TN, the Samsung 245BW, and I didn't like it. The Dell 2407WFP-HC is cheap as it is and it's one of the best screens ever.
I really don't know about the Westinghouse L2410NM that much either. Again, lack of info. But it also looks good. I'm just more comfortable recommending LCDs that tons of people already use (i.e. "tried and true").
The NEC 20WMGX2 looks great, however, any reasons not to get the $369.99 OEM open box one?
Id rather not pay ~$100 for a fancy box
Glad it could help, and welcome to the forums.
The Dell had to be removed because it was discontinued. This was described a few posts back in the thread.
I hear that a lot that I maybe have some "conspiracy" against WG screens, but not really. The wide gamut models I do want to recommend haven't been reviewed by the pros yet, or I'm just not quite convinced. And I'm not recommending something I'm not sure about, especially under the "photo editing" category. Besides this, there are always people who say LCD x is great for y, but it's too bad that 80% of them are wrong which is why this thread really has to exist. I'm still researching the advantage, if any, of WG screens for photo editing. As I understand it they are only useful for the Adobe RGB space.
Also, it really depends on your target. If you target is print material, then wide gamut monitors are for you. They cover your target better. This was something I didn't realize earlier, but now that I do the wide gamut LCDs have been recommended under DTP for awhile.
If your target is other people who mostly have 72% monitors, then a wide gamut monitor isn't something you want. At least, a normal gamut monitor will do the job better for at least a little cheaper. The colors won't appear the same to your users. The same goes for video editing.
But, some screens like the 3007WFP-HC report good results after calibration according to DigitalVersus. Unfortunately, they don't tell how they calibrated it, what colorimeter they used, or what targets they used. Besides, that's only one source. When you're dealing with new tech especially usually you want more confirmation than that. At the present time, AFAIK, that confirmation just isn't available yet for these screens. I'm waiting for X-Bit Labs to take a look at them. Or Tom's Hardware... Of course it's only once in awhile that I feel like scouring each one of THG's different language sites to see which one has a 3007WFP-HC review. I try to keep up on it but it's not always possible. So I'll put it this way: even if there are a couple of reviews that describe their methods when calibrating the consumer wide gamut displays, I haven't seen them yet. Until then I will play it safe and just recommend what I know will work for people. It's too risky otherwise. In other words I'm more pessimistic about the new technology for purposes like photo editing.
If you think you have the data to support that one particular wide gamut display is a winner for photo editing then I'll be happy to look at the links and will consider recommending it in the OP. Sometimes it's just a case of me not having seen reviews that were actually out there.
My thought process is sort of like a flow chart. After I hear about an LCD that may be good for one purpose I just sort of wait it out and see if any good (pro) reviews of it pop up. After so long of waiting and no pro reviews I eventually try to judge by what enthusiasts on HardForum (most popular Displays forum on the web) say about it. I make sure as well as I can that there aren't any outstanding or show-stopper issues with the LCD then I make it a place on the recommendations list with any issues I deem important in the Notes section.
The pics I've seen of normal vs wide gamut displays seem to be anywhere from more subtle (PCPop Chinese reviews) to drastic (user forum). I'd like to see more of these comparisons too. Something that has drastic changes to the image just can't be good when you target an audience of 72% monitors. It just seems logical to me which is why I haven't bothered to do much more research on it, but if there is an explanation why that is false I would like to hear it also.
What should probably be clarified is that wide gamut displays are great for photo editing if you're just printing photos. I'm sure that a lot of people do that (proofing to paper), so I will definitely find a way to clarify that in the OP. Maybe that is what "photo editing" is for the most part and I'm just not aware of it.
Back to my dilemma
The Acer looks to be flying under the radar--very few people seem to realize that it is a wide-gamut advanced-PVA monitor. This is confirmed by BeHardware and by the specs on Acer's UK site (but not on the US site--I'll come back to that). The BeHardware review is the only review I have seen of this monitor, and they give it a so-so review, but also note that it is WG and that calibrated color accuracy is excellent. PcPro reviews the AL2623W, a sibling with the same specs, and notes that it showed perfect blending on colour and greyscale ramps (but make no mention that it is a WG monitor). The monitor has been out for a while now, and user reviews indicate high satisfaction (apart from a DVI resolution issue that has since been fixed), including those who mention using it for graphics/photo work (wolf-in-sheeps-clothing type descriptions)
My hesitations about Acer:
-There is no way to see this monitor. Acer doesn't list any outlets other than internet, and the many US retailers on price grabber do not include any retail outlets, or ala Circuit City/Best Buy, it is online-only. My neighbor has the Dell, so I'm lucky there, but I hate to buy something sight-unseen that I may have to ship back, especially given shipping costs, restocking fees, and general hassle.
-I wonder about the panel/backlight I would actually receive. I have never seen anything to indicate that there is any other 26" panel/backlight combination that Acer sells (in spite of the UK site listing the AL2616W and the US the AL2616Wd, and the UK AL2623W), but I am still wary that I may receive something else.... BeHardware indicates the model they reviewed as the AL2623Wd, and clearly indicates this as WG-PVA, while Acer-UK lists the display as Advanced PVA, 92%NTSC colour situation (sic). But there is no mention of WG or display technology on the US site, just the same specs and the 178 viewing angle. I guess I'll just call them and see what they say
So finally, my questions: What do you know about this monitor? Do you have any knowledge/experience that would make you say, definitely go for the Dell rather than the Acer (based on image quality alone--I'm leaving other issues aside)? And finally, is the reliablility of Acer so inferior that I'll regret the choice (I wouldn't consider it without the 3-yr warranty)?
I don't know much more than you do about this LCD, and I actually wasn't aware it was a wide gamut. I have to say I would prefer Dell over Acer because they have a much better reputation, better support, and a big user base always willing to thoroughly document any issues they have with the LCD.
I typically don't recommend an LCD until X-Bit or THG reviews it, and they haven't done so for the AL2616Wd yet. Sometimes BeHardware is enough but then again without confirmation the US model is the same then that's going to be hard to recommend.
I probably wouldn't buy Acer personally. The Acer AL2051W is up there because it's a diamond in the rough. Some people aren't as picky about brands and I figure as long as they were going to buy that other cheap Acer they may as well have gotten the good quality, cheap Acer.
I should have probably said it before I edited the post, so sorry, but I do appreciate this outlook on how the average person chooses an LCD. It's certainly not anything I can relate to.
About the bolded part, I wish I had the authority to do that, but the forum is independent from the site and this isn't an "official" thread. (I don't work at Anandtech, and I don't get paid.) But maybe they wouldn't mind, anyway. Why don't you e-mail them and see what they think? I mean, it's a little pompous for just me to be doing that isn't it?
Thanks, that's great and that's just what I intended here.
Anyway the thing on the decision process would probably have focused on what sites to look at first rather than what physical parameters of an LCD match what purpose. The reason I can't do the latter? Because it can greatly vary. Some PVAs are bad for DTP, some are great. Some have very poor default color accuracy, etc. Maybe bad gamma control even due to a panel manufacturer.
The DTP/photo consideration points hadn't been updated since wide gamut displays came out. So that should be updated. It wasn't simply because I hadn't noticed it.
It seems as though you are mostly puzzled by my lack of WG recommendations specifically and I have outlined the many reasons for that above. Indeed some of the WG monitors may not be as good for web work. But, typically DTP isn't as sensitive to this stuff as photo editing is. DTP is more of an industry where you want things to "pop out" anyway and WG monitors fit this criteria perfectly. Photo editing on the other hand is critical where you need a reference monitor that can show every shade of gray.
True maybe there is some overlap between these categories (I'm sure there is). In that case, photo editing is the safe side but this is why you'd ask anyway. Nobody said choosing an LCD was clear cut. My OP hopefully just guides you in the right direction so you don't just buy the first thing you see, but honestly it's not definitive 100% (and certainly not for everybody and their purposes) and I never really intended it that way.
I appreciate the constructive criticism above, but this is really going over the line, both in time and in resources. Based on the scrutinization I don't think you understand the intent of this thread. It is not the only resource you can find on the web for LCD info. In fact, there are tons of links you should have a look at, which I have included in the OP.
No amount of information in the OP can help everybody decide the perfect LCD for themselves, so I like to draw the line where it just doesn't make sense to add any more info. After all, most review sites have taken that concept and ran with it. I try to provide more info than them but not to the point where it's going to be a confusing mess that no one will bother to read. The effort it takes to update the information based on industry changes is simply too high.
Another reason is simply lack of research on my own part. I don't yet know how all the color management stuff works, but I don't think it has ever come up in this thread. I'm just trying to point them to an LCD that won't limit them, but I'm probably the last person to ask when it comes to what color management software to use or how the "perceptual intent" of an ICM is going to look. It would be nice if you could share your knowledge on this subject where I'm lacking.
Most of the OP is based on observation and guessing, but most of it is correct. Still, it's nothing more than what you can get elsewhere on the web. It's just there in an organized fashion. In order to write a completely perfect guide I'd probably have to work at a major LCD manufacturer and have a PhD in color management, but alas I don't. The OP's shortcomings are usually compensated for by the thread and ensuing discussion.
And after all this I got a bit defocused. But I think you should spring for the Dell 2407WFP-HC. It's honestly a pretty good deal (the 24" used to be $900 or higher). Besides, it has a much better reputation and userbase behind it.
Isn't it just easier for them to sign up and ask in the thread? I don't see much of a point in this, actually.
Edited: tried to be more objective with this reply.
I thought open box meant the display could have possibly been tampered with first or returned for a good reason (like dead pixels), which is why I generally avoid those products. I don't think they are recertified but you'll have to check Newegg's policies on that or e-mail them for any more specifics as they apply to LCD monitors.
Ahh heck with it, I think ill go retail, one less this to worry about. However, one thing im wondering about is how well would it do with older 4:3 low resolution games, I think I read somewhere that the 20WMGX2 has trouble with 4:3 ratios.
It's a great deal, but it's way to good to be true. I wouldn't touch it. Read this off of Newegg's site:
There is no way I would pay anything for that.
It should work as long as you have a way to connect them up (VGA for the Xbox I assume or maybe DVI for Xbox Elite). Since you're dealing with a standard PC-type input there might be a few problems. This depends on the model though. It may say in the manual what modes it supports (720p, 1080i) etc or often you can find info on HardForum about this.
I've hooked up a Samsung (which tend to have very flexible scalers) 17" monitor up to a 1080i-output HDTV tuner box and it worked great. Even 17". But my 19" or 20.1" monitors don't have that flexibility over VGA or DVI (I think the 20.1" sort of works with VGA). If it's Samsung you might be lucky. But a monitor that big is bound to have support no matter if it's Samsung or not.
Which 24" has the best 1080i over component support? It seems like the Dell 2407WFP-HC is a great all around display, but no one really has anything good to say about 1080i over component. I need it for GT4 on my PS2.
Dell 2407WFP-HC price dropped $100 this month. /cry for me
Does anyone know if Dell will give $100 back if you purchased monitor before price drop recently? Like I got mine less than a month ago now.. I heard they do something to this effect. Anyone know?
Does anyone know if Dell will give $100 back if you purchased monitor before price drop recently? Like I got mine less than a month ago now.. I heard they do something to this effect. Anyone know?
Thanks for the info, xtknight.
I was looking at the Dell website and they now have their 22 inch version selling for $269. (Probably safe to assume that is a TN panel)
How would you rank it in comparison to the LG and HP, in terms of quality?
I was looking at the Dell website and they now have their 22 inch version selling for $269. (Probably safe to assume that is a TN panel)
How would you rank it in comparison to the LG and HP, in terms of quality?
My budget for a photo editing monitor is around $300, and I realize that's low, but that's why I'm willing to buy a slightly inferior performing monitor (compared to the ones you recommended in the OP) if it fit my needs. Basically, I'm asking if you could extend your recommendation list to a few more monitors, what would you include?
As far as my needs, something around 19"-20", where 24" would be great but I know it's unrealistic at that price. Probably non glossy (more on that shortly), and widescreen is a plus.
I have the chance to get the Samsung 971P for ~$270 after rebate, but I'm just very hesitant because it seems too software dependent, especially when customer reviews say the software sucks. What would put me at ease and probably get me to buy this monitor is if you told me that Samsung's softwares (e.g. MagicTune, Natural Color, etc) are not needed and I can still get good colors and max performance out of my monitor if I just install the base driver and calibrate it with 3rd party tools. Can I do that? And can I still use OSD if I don't install the programs? From Samsung's site, it says MagicTune is meant to replace the OSD. My worries are if I want to use this monitor 3+ years from now, where MS might have a different OS, MagicTune might not be updated to work on the new OS...so I worry that would mean my monitor is now obsolete. Or another possibility is that MagicTune might not be compatible with a new graphics card. How would you address these concerns?
As for the glossy vs non-glossy issue, I do like the looks of glossy better (I have a glossy laptop), but it's been a nightmare for photo editing, which is why I'm now looking for an LCD since I can't do photo editing on my laptop. Editing pics on my glossy laptop gives me a bright, vibrant look that comes out dull with a color cast on a non glossy LCD. Color calibration does not work, I've used both Spyder2Pro and Pantone Huey Pro. Before and after looks exactly the same, so I emailed tech support for both companies. Here's one reply from Pantone:
"There are known issues using PANTONE Huey and PANTONE HueyPRO on the
'glossy' laptop screens. This issue is currently being investigated by
X-Rite; as yet we do not have a solution."
Spyder's tech support says the same: that you can't calibrate glossy LCDs. Can you cast any additional light on calibrating glossy LCDs? For example, you recommend the glossy NEC for photo editing, so I'm assuming you're able to calibrate it correctly and get accurate colors. Yet, Spyder and Pantone claims you can't calibrate these glossy monitors.
Sorry for the long post, I'm gonna bold my questions so they wont' get lost in the post. Thanks!
Right now there are 6 entries, so I'll go from there. Probably something like this:
7. Acer AL2051W (glossy P-MVA): $200
8. ViewSonic VP930b (P-MVA): $320
9. Samsung 204BW (TN): $200
Everything seems to indicate that the Samsung 205BW is going out of stock in favor of the 206BW, which is more expensive. But, the 204BW is still available and perhaps it uses the same panel as the 205BW, which tested pretty well for color reproduction.
The VP930b's default settings aren't great, but it can be calibrated to dE94 <1.
The AL2051W uses a new version of the P-MVA tech included in the VP930b, so it can't be much worse. When you're using monitors this low in price though, you just can't expect good results "out of the box". Even the more expensive ones aren't that great out of the box, although the Samsung 971P is actually an exception. The ones over $1000 probably aren't bad either.
I don't like the lack of controls either. But, the fact that it's a great display puts me at ease. Even the default settings on this monitor aren't bad. Of course, it's still a lot better after calibration.
From what I know, the monitor's controls use a standard. And there is software to access the controls using Linux, Mac, and Windows through various tools. One I know off the tip of my tongue is softMCCS on the Windows side. The NVIDIA control panel also has "direct monitor adjustment" if you use Coolbits. softMCCS has been more convincing for me since it allows adjustment of all options. And, EnTech, who makes softMCCS is pretty good about supporting new OSes. It already supports Vista x64, AFAIK. Latest version was released July 30. http://www.entechtaiwan.com/lib/softmccs.shtm
I bet PowerStrip does or will have something like this too.
Basically, the monitor is controlled via the I2C bus over the DDC protocol, which really does not depend on your video card at least AFAIK. All of them should have this option and all the drivers released from now should have those options. The next version of Windows might could include monitor adjustment like this.
Besides, I myself haven't had any issues with MagicTune. It's always a good idea to keep an old OS around anyway for compatibility concerns, and this is one program you could use on that old OS. It's known to have problems with certain NVIDIA and ATI cards though until they update it.
Yes, I am able to calibrate the monitor fine using the Eye One Display 2 with outstanding results. I have some profiles available in the profile thread (linked to under "Using Your LCD"/Calibration).
It's interesting you should mention that the Spyder has problems with glossy displays though. This is definitely not something I was aware of, so I will note it in the 20WMGX2's Notes and also in the calibration section.
I'm pretty sure that the LaCie Blue Eye also works fine on the NEC, as that's what THG uses and they came out with decent results. Whatever X-Bit Labs, DigitalVersus, and BeHardware used must have worked, too.
P.S. I don't see anything about lack of glossy support on X-Rite or Colorvision's site.
All I came across with the Huey is that it tends to stick well to glossy screens: http://www.maclife.com/article/huey
I think they are talking about calibrating it from afar, perhaps. (like placing the colorimeter from a foot away to compensate for ambient light where the glossy panel's reflection would get in the way) I don't know who does this, anyway. It certainly doesn't seem to be an accurate way to do it but from everything I'm reading there should be no problem with calibrating glossy screens. I've certainly heard nothing of the matter. You can even calibrate projectors with these colorimeters.
Other info: http://forums.dpreview.com/for...=1004&message=23944915
A few things I have learned about the wide gamut, photo editing dilemma:
The wide gamut displays are fine after calibration. They can be calibrated using conventional colorimeters. Expensive models like the NEC include colorimeters optimized for wider gamuts but the typical, popular ones like the Spyder work fine. And they can return results as good as some of their normal gamut counterparts.
They have worse default settings, which is a concern for many people. It's also something I at least glance at before putting a monitor in that section.
Their good after-calibration results makes me feel a little more comfortable recommending wide gamut displays for photo editing. Still, I haven't seen anything to indicate why these monitors are better for editing photos targeted at a 72% gamut audience. I've only seen things that indicate otherwise. You must remember photo editing is about accuracy, not how "splashy" or contrasty the colors look. They are good only if you know how to use them properly. Apparently there is software that you can use to emulate a 72% monitor as a target (actually Photoshop does this). Some monitors like the Samsung XL20 have options to emulate the sRGB space in their OSD, but this is the only monitor I know of that has this option, and it's $2000 and didn't even get good test results for calibration despite its LED backlight.
I still want more info on this subject before I put wide gamut monitors in the OP photo editing section. Hopefully X-Bit, BeHardware, THG, or flatpanels.dk will run an article on this subject.
Also, please let me know if I'm wrong, but the use of Adobe RGB is quite restricted compared to sRGB. I thought pretty much all consumer cameras used sRGB.
The wide gamut displays are fine after calibration. They can be calibrated using conventional colorimeters. Expensive models like the NEC include colorimeters optimized for wider gamuts but the typical, popular ones like the Spyder work fine. And they can return results as good as some of their normal gamut counterparts.
They have worse default settings, which is a concern for many people. It's also something I at least glance at before putting a monitor in that section.
Their good after-calibration results makes me feel a little more comfortable recommending wide gamut displays for photo editing. Still, I haven't seen anything to indicate why these monitors are better for editing photos targeted at a 72% gamut audience. I've only seen things that indicate otherwise. You must remember photo editing is about accuracy, not how "splashy" or contrasty the colors look. They are good only if you know how to use them properly. Apparently there is software that you can use to emulate a 72% monitor as a target (actually Photoshop does this). Some monitors like the Samsung XL20 have options to emulate the sRGB space in their OSD, but this is the only monitor I know of that has this option, and it's $2000 and didn't even get good test results for calibration despite its LED backlight.
I still want more info on this subject before I put wide gamut monitors in the OP photo editing section. Hopefully X-Bit, BeHardware, THG, or flatpanels.dk will run an article on this subject.
Also, please let me know if I'm wrong, but the use of Adobe RGB is quite restricted compared to sRGB. I thought pretty much all consumer cameras used sRGB.
I think the manual has notes on this, but I'm sure there's a setting you can use to turn off the dynamic contrast. I thought "Normal" disabled it. Under User you have more fine-grained control of ACE (some adaptive color feature) though.
I don't know of any, actually. I just bought mine blindly off the web.
I've heard that the Dells have darker component inputs but I don't know about the 2407WFP-HC specifically. Maybe you should look into the BenQ FP241WZ. I thought it had great input support.
I doubt it, but I'm not sure.
I don't like the E228WFP at all. It uses a Chi Mei panel, and it probably has a lot of cheap components. Dell's E series have been known to include flaky inverters. Besides, you can get better for cheaper (though probably smaller). I personally wouldn't touch the Dell E series with a ten foot pole.
So, yes, the LG and HP are considerably better even if they are more expensive. Higher contrast, better response time, probably better color accuracy.
The Acer AL2051W for $200 would be a much better bet than the E228WFP at $270. Or, the VP930b for ~$50 more. Or probably the Samsung 204BW at a similar price.
Well, if you have an NVIDIA card you have many scaling options, anyway. I think ATI is catching up on the matter too.
The NEC's 4:3 scaling looks decent to me. It doesn't allow you to have any control of the Expansion method, though. It just scales to the whole screen. There are no "aspect ratio" or "centered" settings on the monitor. Usually there's some way to do this under software.
Thanks for the quick reply, xtknight. When you calibrated your [glossy] NEC monitor, how does a photograph look on a side-by-side comparison with a non-glossy LCD? Or even CRT?
My disappointing experience with glossy LCDs may just be an exception. The LCD is on my Compaq Presario R3000 laptop and has an ATI Mobility Radeon 9000 graphics card with the latest driver. When I tried calibrating it with the Spyder2Pro, the software tells me to first change some initial settings, such as changing Gamma to 2.5. I tried doing that through the ATI driver and changed the default from 1.0 to 2.5 and it was obviously not meant to be 2.5. Everyday work (surfing, word processing, viewing non-color-critical photos) look fine at the default setting, but at 2.5, it's unusable since the whole screen was too washed out. So I'm not sure if all glossy LCDs are supposed to have a ~1.0 gamma setting or if it's just my particular laptop. Continuing with the calibration at 1.0, nothing changed when I was done. So that was my experience with trying to calibrate this laptop. Do you have any inputs on my situation?
I can't speak for P&S cameras, but most DSLRs (including the low end like Canon Digital Rebel XT, what I have) give you the option to choose the color space. But if you shoot in Raw, it won't matter, as the Raw converter will allow you to select Adobe RGB or sRGB. As for which to use will depend on what you want the end result to be. According to the Photoshop CS2 book by Scott Kelby, if you're printing to a home inkjet printer, you should use Adobe RGB due to the wider gamut. But if you send it to a photolab (such as mpix.com), they typically want the pictures in sRGB. As for which will give you a better print, I'm not sure. My guess is if you have a high-end printer like the Canon Pro9000 or Epson 1400, then you will get better results with Adobe RGB. And as you know, if the picture is just meant to be viewed online, then sRGB is the way to go.
My disappointing experience with glossy LCDs may just be an exception. The LCD is on my Compaq Presario R3000 laptop and has an ATI Mobility Radeon 9000 graphics card with the latest driver. When I tried calibrating it with the Spyder2Pro, the software tells me to first change some initial settings, such as changing Gamma to 2.5. I tried doing that through the ATI driver and changed the default from 1.0 to 2.5 and it was obviously not meant to be 2.5. Everyday work (surfing, word processing, viewing non-color-critical photos) look fine at the default setting, but at 2.5, it's unusable since the whole screen was too washed out. So I'm not sure if all glossy LCDs are supposed to have a ~1.0 gamma setting or if it's just my particular laptop. Continuing with the calibration at 1.0, nothing changed when I was done. So that was my experience with trying to calibrate this laptop. Do you have any inputs on my situation?
I can't speak for P&S cameras, but most DSLRs (including the low end like Canon Digital Rebel XT, what I have) give you the option to choose the color space. But if you shoot in Raw, it won't matter, as the Raw converter will allow you to select Adobe RGB or sRGB. As for which to use will depend on what you want the end result to be. According to the Photoshop CS2 book by Scott Kelby, if you're printing to a home inkjet printer, you should use Adobe RGB due to the wider gamut. But if you send it to a photolab (such as mpix.com), they typically want the pictures in sRGB. As for which will give you a better print, I'm not sure. My guess is if you have a high-end printer like the Canon Pro9000 or Epson 1400, then you will get better results with Adobe RGB. And as you know, if the picture is just meant to be viewed online, then sRGB is the way to go.
Well, I picked up the Acer X241Wsd at a local Best Buy, so if I don't like the characteristics, I'll simply return it. $418.88 for a 24" monitor was just too cheap to pass up.
I'm primarily going to be using the monitor for gaming, and I won't really ever be using the portrait mode or really doing anything other than sitting right in front of it. Given that, I'm hoping that the limitations of the TN panel won't be overly problematic. Thanks for your thoughts!!!xtknight, I rambled on in my original post. Thank you for giving as detailed a response as you did. In terms of meeting needs for more specifically targeted resources, maybe you could point to review sites that are targeted to various users, ie, gamers, photographers, etc. I came across this resource which I think is fantastic, don't know if you have seen it (it's a free site, but registration is required for viewing):
http://www.shootsmarter.com/index.html
They have a detailed look at monitors, with an overview, detailed information about their calibration and testing, and recommendations for several specific monitors. Their testing methodology is very interesting, setting different monitors side by side in a calibrated, controlled-lighting studio, with a blind to hide brands, and having professional photographers compare print results with monitor displays in order to grade the displays' ability for print matching. They also use a 21" trinitron CRT as a reference. Very interesting.
They also point out, as you mention, that labs want sRGB color space for prints, and that many professional portrait/wedding photographers work in an entirely sRGB workflow. They also state that the color space of high-end inkjets (such as the Epson Photo 2200) is no larger than the sRGB space. I have read conflicting information as to whether sRGB or Adobe RGB is a better match for home printers. They lean towards recommending an sRGB workflow for photo printing, and Adobe RGB for graphics/print work as that is the industry standard.
And yes, I'm sure you are correct that most consumer digital cameras are sRGB.
Anyway, you are offering an excellent service and I thank you for all your time/effort. I wasn't meaning to suggest that the site is deficient, I was pretty much thinking out loud as to how to map a decision-making process. Way to much work, and in the end, not very useful because there is so much variation even between similar monitors with the same display technologies. A few updates, as you mention re WG displays, would be as much as anyone could ask.
http://www.shootsmarter.com/index.html
They have a detailed look at monitors, with an overview, detailed information about their calibration and testing, and recommendations for several specific monitors. Their testing methodology is very interesting, setting different monitors side by side in a calibrated, controlled-lighting studio, with a blind to hide brands, and having professional photographers compare print results with monitor displays in order to grade the displays' ability for print matching. They also use a 21" trinitron CRT as a reference. Very interesting.
They also point out, as you mention, that labs want sRGB color space for prints, and that many professional portrait/wedding photographers work in an entirely sRGB workflow. They also state that the color space of high-end inkjets (such as the Epson Photo 2200) is no larger than the sRGB space. I have read conflicting information as to whether sRGB or Adobe RGB is a better match for home printers. They lean towards recommending an sRGB workflow for photo printing, and Adobe RGB for graphics/print work as that is the industry standard.
And yes, I'm sure you are correct that most consumer digital cameras are sRGB.
Anyway, you are offering an excellent service and I thank you for all your time/effort. I wasn't meaning to suggest that the site is deficient, I was pretty much thinking out loud as to how to map a decision-making process. Way to much work, and in the end, not very useful because there is so much variation even between similar monitors with the same display technologies. A few updates, as you mention re WG displays, would be as much as anyone could ask.
The glossy coating really doesn't try to exaggerate or create something that doesn't there. To my knowledge, it simply increases the transmissivity of the panel and handles glare differently.
For this reason, the image looks nice and vibrant, but not overvibrant. The glossy S-IPS I have here appears a lot more balanced than the matte ViewSonic VP930b P-MVA I have next to it. It has more to do with the panel tech than the coating.
If you want to link me to a particular image, I love doing comparisons between the two monitors. I have them right next to each other at the moment so it's easy to do.
Laptop LCDs are generally terrible for photo editing. Actually they are relatively terrible for anything except text. There are a few exceptions like the FlexView IPS screens. They are also nearly impossible to calibrate properly because of bad characteristics.
There is no doubt you'd want a dedicated monitor for editing photos.
Also, please let me know if I'm wrong, but the use of Adobe RGB is quite restricted compared to sRGB. I thought pretty much all consumer cameras used sRGB.
Good to know. Thanks.
You're comment about the BenQ FP241WZ is about input in general, not 1080i over component input specifically, right? According to the folks on hardforum, the BenQ 24" has plenty of problems with 1080i over component.
newschool
Member
- Jun 20, 2007
- 127
- 1
- 81
First thanks for the thread. I am coming from a 17" LCD monitor running at 100HZ for "pro" gaming and I need a 19" LCD. But I will watch movies too. I saw that benq just released the FP93GX+, you quoted it as the best hardcore gaming LCD but is it good for some movies watching too? My other choices would be Hyundai Q90U and Viewsonic VX922.. My budget is about 300 max.
Im just looking for opinions
Im just looking for opinions
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
Facebook
Twitter