DVI and no DVI

[John]

After laboriously reading LCD reviews , I noticed with Anands reviews
at least , he seems to suggest theres a correlation between streaking
and the analog connection. In fact with many consumer reviews and
Anandtechs latest 19" LCD reviews -- he rates many 25 ms monitors well
even in the ghosting /streaking category. The one he rates the lowest
well below avg was a Samsung 910 w/o a DVI.

Additionally he has some older reviews where he has charts claiming
for that LCD - theres lots of streaking with the analog connection and
little with the DVI. Strange few people mention this. Maybe thats
the big difference. I havent seen this mentioned once by posters they
usually claim text is sharper with DVI though others dispute this.
Could this be why some claim some monitors ghost like crazy while
others claim it doesnt? Maybe some are using the analog connection and
others arent? Who knows.

And I noticed some articles that suggest many or is it all the newer
panels coming out now are TN panels that are 6 bit though Anandtech
seems to only have one the BenQ in his roundup. Samsung has 12ms and
16 ms out now and theres a raft of others. Maybe 6 bit is good enough.
The Viewsonic VX910 also seems like a TN 6 bit though its hard to
tell. One post in german at a euro site I think claims it is - the
babelfish translation comes out a bit garbled.

So is it 8 bit older panels with DVI vs 6 bit with DVI which are even
faster but with less color accuracy? Even the 16 ms though most
consumers claim it doesnt ghost - some have said with certain types of
action on certain games it does.

 

[burchill]

Interesting post, there does seem to be a lot of confusion over LCD
monitors and none of the hardware sites seem to come to a consensus.

 

[John]

Interesting post, there does seem to be a lot of confusion over LCD
monitors and none of the hardware sites seem to come to a consensus.

Yeah one thing Xbit Labs says strongly in one older LCD roundup that
with monitors theres a strong subjective aspect to judging them so
they said flat out they werent going to act like such and such monitor
was the best one etc Anandtech also mentions something like that but
Toms Hardware doesnt frame it as much like that. The main thing I
wish is - with prices really coming down with lots of models and 19"
screens falling into the 300-500 range which makes it much more
affordable --- that they would test 20-30 of the most popular or
cheapest most available models from the most popular places like ZZF,
Newegg , Mwave , Compusa and most of the retail outlets. Also theres
lots of new models that have come out or will come out because of the
low reponse time craze.

And I wish they would clearly write an article which points out or
disputes the notion I have now --- is it mainly the older types of
panels PVA, MVA etc vs the variations on new TN panels that are all
faster? Does anything 16,12, 8ms = TN 6(18) bit?

And what are the new technologies if any that may supercede these
technologies? Are there any 8(24bit) fast low cost panels on the
horizon? And should anyone doing graphics work stay away from 6 bit
panels? Is a decent 8 bit 25 ms panel a better choice since some are
rated OK in ghosting and streaking on reviews , than a 6 bit?

If you dont do graphics work it seems like most people cant tell
between a 6 and 8 bit - the BenQs generally got good reviews by
consumers at Anandtech and the Viewsonic 910 got a rave review by a
reviewer in Europe except for the fact he pointed out using
DisplayMate some testing software he saw some banding , problems with
some gradations of color.

And is there a strong correlation between streaking/analog connections
with the TN panels vs the older ones ? I guess not if you go by the
Samsung 910 in the roundup it had 25 ms times and tested way below avg
in ghosting/streaking vs all the other ones tested and it was the only
one without DVI.



Heres an excerpt from a review at Anandtechs site:



Last week, we published our first 16ms, 19" LCD from Sharp with some
interesting results. Even though the monitor performed great for
gaming, there was a severe deficiency in some of the color replication
due to the 6-bit LCD panel (instead of a typical 8-bit panel). Today,
Samsung attempts a similar plunge into low response time LCDs with a
6-bit panel of its own.


Our first surprise came when we noticed how poorly the 172X held the
analog signal. Any imperfections from the analog signal seemed only
amplified by the TN display. Below is a streaking artifact generated
by a simple alternating white/black column test pattern (Moire Column
Pattern). The effect looks like a viewing angle imperfection in the
still image, but careful analysis shows the streaking occurs no matter
what viewing angle. The streaking only appears on the left and right
sides of the screen, not the middle.

Certainly, the step backwards in display panels, going from 8-bit PVA
displays to 6-bit TN LCDs is not a great marker of progress. We found
imperfections with the color rendition, which were better than our
Sharp LL-191A. Unfortunately, some were not better than our Dell
2001FP or Samsung 192T.

On the other hand, the lower response time is definitely a step in the
right direction. Looking back at our Samsung 172X, we could say that
we were generally pleased and surprised. The US retail version of the
LCD produces phenomenally better results than the Hitachi CML174. If
you are convinced that response time is the final factor holding you
back from getting an LCD, you may be fairly surprised with the 172X.
Kudos to Samsung for producing the first 17" 12ms LCD, and doing an
excellent job with it.

The SyncMaster 172X boasts the lowest response times to date, but even
12ms response times are not the end of the line. After working closely
with Samsung over the last few weeks, we began hearing information
about their next generation PVA enhancement - DCC-II. Samsung's DCC
(and LG Philips' ODC) technologies both work by using algorithms to
anticipate twisting the substrate (this is called "pre-tilt").
According to sources at the recent Society for Information Displays in
Seattle, Samsung believes that the new DDC-II technology is capable of
achieving 8ms gray-to-gray response times! Stay tuned for more LCD
reviews at it appears things are just starting to heat up.