- Jun 17, 2002
- 1,820
- 4
- 81
THis is confusing, mostly do to so many conflicting reviews on the net.
Tom and Anad both agree that there are some problems in displaying colors on the hitachi
Tom doesn't mention anything about ununiform brightness, anand does.
both agree that the Hitachi is damned fast in its response time.
The list goes on...
I suppose that there is a bit of subjectivity in the tests but this is my first consideration of a FP display and I wish there was some form of finality to Anands review, rather than the intricate detailing of the monitor, my question woudl be:
Does the avarage user notice all these "flaws" I mean Anand was auctually looking for flaws, but how finite was his anaylsis?
While in the review he gave the hitachi 3.5 in primary color replication he also stated that
"While several sources insist the brightness should be turned all the way down, we determined the sweet spot for (almost) accurate color replication lies in the 30 ? 50% range. We can actually determine why by mathematically analyzing the specifications given to us; contrast ratio and brightness."
So the color problem can be adjusted???
"The higher contrast ratios provide a quick reference for how vivid colors might appear on the screen, but we have to keep in mind that it requires brightness measurements as well. The VESA FPDM2 handbook jokingly portrays a cartoon stating something along the lines of ?Well it says 102:1 contrast ratio but it certainly looks better than that!? Unfortunately, contrast ratios are a flawed and unreliable measurement, but the LCD sector depends on it too much for it to be removed from screen specifications. "
So their contrast and brightness argument is then subjective also???
I guess my main concern is how much of this will the avarage user notice, If your looking for flaws (like most reviews of this nature do) chances are that you will find them.
I'm not going to say that Im not partial to hitachi, in that I've woned 2 hitachi monitors and im currently typing on a SuperScan ELite 751 and they look great, but if what Anand says is true, it might be time to move on or at least wait.
Tom and Anad both agree that there are some problems in displaying colors on the hitachi
Tom doesn't mention anything about ununiform brightness, anand does.
both agree that the Hitachi is damned fast in its response time.
The list goes on...
I suppose that there is a bit of subjectivity in the tests but this is my first consideration of a FP display and I wish there was some form of finality to Anands review, rather than the intricate detailing of the monitor, my question woudl be:
Does the avarage user notice all these "flaws" I mean Anand was auctually looking for flaws, but how finite was his anaylsis?
While in the review he gave the hitachi 3.5 in primary color replication he also stated that
"While several sources insist the brightness should be turned all the way down, we determined the sweet spot for (almost) accurate color replication lies in the 30 ? 50% range. We can actually determine why by mathematically analyzing the specifications given to us; contrast ratio and brightness."
So the color problem can be adjusted???
"The higher contrast ratios provide a quick reference for how vivid colors might appear on the screen, but we have to keep in mind that it requires brightness measurements as well. The VESA FPDM2 handbook jokingly portrays a cartoon stating something along the lines of ?Well it says 102:1 contrast ratio but it certainly looks better than that!? Unfortunately, contrast ratios are a flawed and unreliable measurement, but the LCD sector depends on it too much for it to be removed from screen specifications. "
So their contrast and brightness argument is then subjective also???
I guess my main concern is how much of this will the avarage user notice, If your looking for flaws (like most reviews of this nature do) chances are that you will find them.
I'm not going to say that Im not partial to hitachi, in that I've woned 2 hitachi monitors and im currently typing on a SuperScan ELite 751 and they look great, but if what Anand says is true, it might be time to move on or at least wait.
) but Anand's review is mostly correct. However, what he fails to mention is the CML174 is still a better quality than most other LCDs excecept a couple models from Samsung and Sony. Review was kinda cheap on compliment, (but that's also understandable since everybody else on the net is chanting how great this monitor is.) 
Facebook
Twitter