I'm in the process of looking for an LCD monitor to buy for my home PC. I've
decided on a 19" and I'm not sure what one of the specifications that is
advertised is.
What I would like to ask about is the "Contrast Ratio". I see them listed as
700:1 and 500:1. Which is better and what does it mean?
Thanks
Brian
If you look on the net theres a lot of places with more technical
definitions but I think something like the difference between the
darkest and lightest shades or something. One area and there are many
-- that LCDs have some problems with is a bit or murkiness in dark
scenes. They dont render all the dark shades perfectly so you lose
some scene details. They talk about that spec and CNET , Anandtech and
Toms hardware note that you cant really totally depend on the specs
alone to tell the whole story. Theres ways to kind of fudge the
numbers.
Basically though they all seem to be OK nowadays LCDs have become more
commodity like. I bought a no-name one from Circuit City and I really
liked it compared to the older ones Ive seen where there seemed to be
big differences and many looked weird. Overall though the criticisms
are :
Speed ---- response time LCDs are much worse than CRTs where this
aspect isnt even an issue. With LCDs until recently they all tended to
have problems with ghosting , smearing of scenes with really fast
action. The dividing line tends to be 25 ms for older ones though
thats not always true ----- and less than 25 ms which generally means
16 ms , 8 ms etc. There are some odd ball ones like 23 ms too, If its
over 25 ms its probably a really cheapo panel. Theres lots of good
25ms ones though and theres even some debate --- I assume its still
true though who knows things change so quickly nowadays. Anyway
Anandtech particularly in some tests pointed out that many - actually
I think all at the time less than 25 ms panels were 6 bit panels vs 8
bit for most 25 ms and over (though even thats not true Ive seen some
25 ms 6 bit panels I think and those would be probably older
technology). Supposedly the 6 bits use dithering to get more colors
and usually are identified as 16.2 mil color specs vs 16.7 mil for 8
bit . In many tests the 6 bits are criticized a bit for less accuracy
in some shades --- banding effects. So it sounds like a compromise ,
faster speed for less accurate colors , banding effects etc. The
faster ones also have worse viewing angles. Another issue with LCDs.
However when you look at the fast reponse LCDs now they seem to sport
better and better specs. Is this a break through or spec HYPE ? I
dont know. I did notice that for instance my View sonic VX910 got good
reviews by consumers (most LCDs get raves from the consumer with a few
disgruntled types) but at some german sites (I used babel fish cause I
was desperate to get info on it before buying) they were obsessed with
the 6 bit vs 8 bit issue. Retailers had mistakenly listed it in ads
as 16.7 mil colors - its really 16.2 mil and it has 16 ms reponse and
the german posters noted it was really a 6 bit. Viewsonic leaves out
the 16.2 spec out everywhere. One reviewer in the UK loved it but
noted some banding effects when he used DIsplaymate to analyze it.
Viewing angles. If you look at LCDs at an angle they look very
different. Like mine If I stand up the screen gets darker and its the
same sideways too. Some LCDs have wider viewing angles than others
but once again these numbers may be hyped and not totally dependable.
There was the suggestion in early tests faster reponse times also took
a toll on viewing angles but like I said Im seeing suspiciously
excellent 16.7 colors and vieweing angles etc with low reponse times
---- have no idea if they are having big breakthroughs very recently
or its number fudging.
Brightness -- thats a pretty obvious one the higher the number the
brighter. The avg seems to be around 300. My Viewsonic 19 is 300 and
many consumers say regardless of model they often turn it down cause
their LCDs are too bright. However the Viewsonic 17" which is similar
to mine but it has 350 brightness spec looks better to my eyes.
Warranty is a big issue many have only 1 year nowadays. Not sure how
cost effective it would be or if at all possible to send a 17" back to
some unknown firm even if it had a 3 yr though if you bought the thing
for $200-300 and it died after a year. A year from now you might find
a 19" inch thats good for 150 locally for all I know.
How accurate the colors are. This is a big topic but frankly unless
you are a graphics artist you probably wont notice and most avgt
consumers like me are really dazzled by the crisp text and brilliant
colors thought they might not be super accurate.
Bad Pixels -- all of them have a bad pixel policy. Theyll say
something like we wont take back anything that doesnt have more than 5
or 8 bad pixels. This is the most scary thing about buying a LCD. No
body want bad pixels -- your screen is made up of zillions of little
micro dots that turn different colors to create the picture on your
screen. Some may be stuck one color and not work. The good thing is
like I keep saying the overall quality seems very good nowadays and
all you see are people bragging about having ZERO bad pixels all the
time even with generic panels. Im sure SOME people do get bad pixels
though obviously. Some say if you get it at CC you can easily take it
back --- Ive never done this. IF you buy it online obviously the odds
are very good youll get a good one but if you get one with 7 bad
pixels some bright red and blue in the middle of your screen that
stand out when you have a white screen -- I think Newegg says wont
take back anything with 8 or less bad pixels. and sending it back is a
hassle anyway.
Heres another debate ---- DVI or no DVI. Some of the cheaper ones dont
have a DVI (digital cable connector). A while ago NONE of the cheap
ones did. The more expensive had both a regular older analog connector
and a DVI. More and more cheap ones have both but the cheapest deals
around still dont have the DVI. Do you have to have DVI? Many say
yes. They claim text is clearer. Others say they cant see much of a
difference. Anandtech adds another wrinkle -- in his tests at least
with some of the screens he tested , ghosting was MUCH worse with the
analog connector vs the DVI . Also you need a video card with a
digital output TOO and you need a DVI cable - not all LCDs - such as
my Viewsonic which has DVI comes with a DVI cable --- check monoprice
for one if you dont get one and you have all that DVI stuff (video
card and LCD screen with DVI) its one of the cheapest sources cause
they can be expensive.
Others probably can think of some other important aspects.
For me one which Im ashamed to admit is the aesthetics of the design
one of the strongest points to my Viewsonic which tends to be a bit
overpriced nowadays ( I got a huge discount) , its one of the best
looking LCDs case wise.
All I can say is --- the best way besides reviews which are hard to
find on the generics often on sale , and looking at the specs but
taking them with a grain salt , is to see it yourself which if often
impossible and you cant put it through tests anyway so even thats
limited. But overall most are pretty decent nowadays and unless you
are a game maniac (then the ghosting issue may be very important to
you) or graphics designer /artist -- youll probably like the cheaper
ones as long as the specs arent grossly off. Ive seen some sales try
to pawn off some dogs -- greater than 25ms reponse times and other
really crappy specs though.
..
