LCD Marketing BS we are fed.

S

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,262
LCD marketing is pumping out increasingly misleading specifications and features. I am getting annoyed by the BS factor. In the quest to quote a bigger number than the other guy, the concept of usability and image quality has been lost, in fact some of these features make image quality worse not better. Now on to some of the current BS:

Dynamic Contrast: This seems to be there for no reason other than to artificially inflate specifications, while in actual use the "feature" is more a detriment causing light pumping effect that almost no one likes, with most people shutting off as soon as the figure out how to.

Wide Gamut backlights While this one may be more debatable, I think it worthy of inclusion, because very few applications are color aware and what Wide Gamut monitors result in, is over saturated inaccurate colors 99% of the time, but yet we have the race from 90%, 100%, 112% or NTSC. No matter that this just leads to more and more inaccurate color in the vast majority of cases. In order for wide gamut to actually be usable, we need a host of new standards. We need a communication standard to accurately communicate the monitors color space to the OS. We need a deeper color depth to reduce steps between colors (Ie 10 bit graphic cards with 10bit dvi or other interconnects) and we need a complete color aware OS that will map all applications properly to the output color space. Until then this is mainly a marketing gimmick that makes images over saturated and inaccurate.


Backlights brighter than the Sun. Everyone quotes their Max brightness in this game of specsmanship, which on bigger panels is similar to staring directly into a Fluorescent light bulb. Numbers like 500cd/m2 which might be fine for a TV 8 feet away but is insane for a monitor 2 feet away. That wouldn't be a problem if they went way down to a comfortable for everyone 80cd/m2, but they don't. Often minimum brightness before futzing with the LCD to have it block more light is around 200cd/m2. Nuts. Another factor of these super backlights is poorer black levels. Blacks get darker as you drop the backlight, but when you have a high powered minimum and tweak it down with LCD you have much poorer blacks than need be. So for usability, lower powered backlights would be better, but they don't get you a higher number on the spec sheet.

Viewing angle nonsense This has got to be one of the most leading and pointless claims. Like most of these specs, the blame lies with the panel manufacturers: Samsung, LG, CMO, etc... I will single out Samsung as the biggest weasels here. They seemed to be the ones pushing the number higher. For a while their spec sheets were claiming +/-90 degreees off access (or 180 degrees total). Some at the company must have eventually pointed out the mathematical impossibility of viewing anything on a plane when 90 degrees off axis to it, so they backed off to +/-89 degrees, hence the ever popular 178 degree number we have now. A number which is still practically IMPOSSIBLE. It is such a ridiculous assertion that I don't know why people quote without calling it to task. At 89 degrees off axis your are essentially looking directly at the side of the panel. You can't tell anything except whether it is off or on. This won't change dependent on technology used, IPS/PVA/TN are all equally indistinguishable at +/-89 (178) degrees. This is a farce bordering on illegal misrepresentations. Another reason to single out Samsung is not only did they push the numbers the highest, they actually have the worse gamma/tone shift at very small angles to go with it. See gamma shifts in this review: http://monitortest.blogspot.com/

There may be others but these are examples of some of the marketing crap we are being foisted that in many cases are detriments rather than benefits, or claims so outrageous they may be challenged in court as they are essentially fraud. I am sick of this crap.
 
Advanced Motion Accelerator/Anti Hold/Motion Picture Accelerator, whatever: which turn backlight off and on in sync to redraw of image for lessening eye's sample and hold effect. Now isn't one of the reasons for going to LCD getting flicker free picture? And then manufacturers go and add feature for making backlight flicker when "refresh"/redraw rate is 60Hz...
Maybe they can restart selling CRTs locked to 60Hz refresh rate and call them motion accelerated monitors!

Colour/Contrast Enhancements: Isn't monitor's job reproducing given image as accurately as possible? Now they add all kind contrast "enhancement" modes to make dark areas darker and bright brighter and colours look like Disneyland. These might go for games and videos and such but try to photoshop images when you can't be sure at all that what monitor shows relates in any way to image you're processing!

"Advertising is legalized lying."
-H. G. Wells
 
All true, but the pannel lottery stuff is even more dispicable. The specs they don't tell you are even worse than the ones they do provide.

The biggest problem of all is quality control or the lack there of. Just look at the pics of the bacllight bleed in the Dell 3008WFP or read the XHD3000 thread. All of these companies are charging ridiculous prices for stuff that is literly thrown toghther.

This is not limited to computer monitors, I have been looking at HD TVs and I have not been able to find anything worth buying. The spec game with TVs is even worse than computer displays. And the quality control is just as bad or worse.

It is really a drag that Sony gave up their market leading position and settled for milking their name, because now you can not get a decent display at anything close to a reasonable price.

These manufactures get away with this stuff, because to many people put up with it.

Dave

PS Thanks for providing a place to vent; it is badly needed.
 
Ugh. Yes the panel lotteries, how could I not include that one. I was actually burned by it. I bought a Dell 2007fp expecting S-IPS panel (way way back when they were A00). Not only did I get an unwanted PVA but it also had bad banding and blur. So poor QC and the panel lotto. Grrrrrr.
 
I just want an f'ing monitor that looks good, is consistent from top to bottom and left to right and doesn't have a pricetag on par with a used car.

I'd even settle for some dead pixels at this point.
 
Response times: Every time I go shopping for a display I just run back home to hug my CRTs. They advertise 3ms response times, but what they really mean is that it'll tack on 46 seconds of input lag while your monitor ghosts images from last month. (Three cheers for Samsung's 275T!)
 
I'll add one:

"All LCD's have some Back Light Bleed"

I've heard many companies make that claim to excuse the poor BLB on their monitors. The fact is there is no reason why BLB or severe back light uniformity issues should still exist on monitors, even the cheap TN versions. The only explanation for the excessive BLB on something like the Dell 3008 or the progressive BLB on the Gateway 24in model is poor QC. In addition, I've never heard or seen any of these black light issues on LCD tvs outside of the "clouding" that poped up on some of the Sony Bravias a few years back (Im assuming the problem is gone now). I own a 32 inch Samsung LCD HDTV, and even in the darkest conditions I could see no visible backlight bleed or uniformity problems.

So why again should I expect any less from a computer monitor?
 
I'm not disputing the elevated specs, however, I've been enjoying 26in Acer for over a month, and everyone who sees it loves it.
By all accounts, any decent 24-27 8 bit panel that doesn't have a particular quirk will be a worthy replacement for old and small LCD and CRT, ie, 17-19in.

As for HDTV's....they're way better than PC monitors, but IMO, you need to stick with the name brands....the idea that a 68cm-76cm CRT TV is preferable to 46-50in LCD or plasma is ludicrous.

Whilst I appreciate that both large plasma and LCD require HDTV/blu-ray feeds to get the best out of them, what's wrong with?.....PQ will impress the hell out of 98% of people, so unless you're a diehard who must have every single spec exceed CRT, then audition a properly set up plasma and get ready for some 2008 PQ...yeah, yeah.

I must point out that lighting, signal strength and viewing distance are critical with these new HDTV's.....so make sure you come to terms with all that, and you'll be able to enjoy yourself.
 
I've noticed the samsung trait as well

When my L245wp shifts against white as well but there is no real tint to it, where as my 2407WFP has a slight yellowing to the shift, and if anything it makes it more blatant to look at. It is however really nice to see samsung pushing for higher resolutions in desktop screens, hope these are not just nitch business only screens like the higher res/size LCDs in the past. That certainly is no gimmick :D
 
Don't forget inflated (or deflated I guess) response times, currently known as G2G.

It would be great if all you did was in black and white, and all the pixels did was shift between grey and white or grey and black. What's next? LG2DG response times (light grey to dark grey)?
 
and people flame me for my sig when everything stated about lcd's here is spot on:rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
Lol LG2DG, the only thing viewing angles are good for nowadays is to tell if it's a TN panel or not
 
vick1000 said:
Don't forget inflated (or deflated I guess) response times, currently known as G2G.

It would be great if all you did was in black and white, and all the pixels did was shift between grey and white or grey and black. What's next? LG2DG response times (light grey to dark grey)?
Click to expand...

G2G is at least more useful than ISO black > white ever was imo.
 
Oh shit. This guy AGAIN. :rolleyes:

Dogmapog said:
I'm not disputing the elevated specs, however, I've been enjoying 26in Acer for over a month, and everyone who sees it loves it.
By all accounts, any decent 24-27 8 bit panel that doesn't have a particular quirk will be a worthy replacement for old and small LCD and CRT, ie, 17-19in.
Click to expand...

You are starting to sound like an Acer rep. Are you?

Dogmapog said:
As for HDTV's....they're way better than PC monitors, but IMO, you need to stick with the name brands....the idea that a 68cm-76cm CRT TV is preferable to 46-50in LCD or plasma is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

What the hell does brand name have to do with the fact that a display is either a CRT or an LCD/plasma? :confused: Heck, can you find ANY "no-name" brands in these markets?

Dogmapog said:
Whilst I appreciate that both large plasma and LCD require HDTV/blu-ray feeds to get the best out of them, what's wrong with?.....PQ will impress the hell out of 98% of people, so unless you're a diehard who must have every single spec exceed CRT, then audition a properly set up plasma and get ready for some 2008 PQ...yeah, yeah.
Click to expand...

Here we go with the "PQ" crap again. "2008 PQ" anyone? That crap sounds like a car ad I'd see on TV.

Dogmapog said:
I must point out that lighting, signal strength and viewing distance are critical with these new HDTV's.....so make sure you come to terms with all that, and you'll be able to enjoy yourself.
Click to expand...

Come to terms with LCD marketing bullshit? :confused::rolleyes: I think not.

Incidentally, absolutely nothing you said has anything to do with the thread title. I really think you should stop spewing these forums with your LCD marketing BS posts. If you're happy with your LCD, that's fine. Stop advertising it in EVERY SINGLE THREAD that tries to expose LCDs' obvious flaws.

--------------

Now, that that's out of the way, I for one am also sick of the increasing marketing crap that these LCD manufacturers put out. The sad thing is that most people go for it because they don't know any better. This is exactly what these LCD manufacturers want.
 
Snowdog you sound like you belong over at the AVSForum with me. :) I couldn't agree more with you. All these companies are trying to have the most "features" yet half of those features equal a lesser quality picture. I have a 46XBR4 and it smears colors worse then my five your old Eizo LCD at work with a 25ms response time. LCD quality control has gone down the toilet as well. Sharp used to make one hell of an LCD now there stuff has bands in it that screem look at me anytime the camera panels. Samsung and Sony LCD panels have serious mura "clouds" issues and the list goes on. It seems that over the years Plasma has been getting better. Just look at a properly setup Pioneer Kuro next to a properly calibrated LCD and it will blow you away. However, even Pioneer is having to scale it back because of the cheap LCD junk we have out there now.
 
I just ignore the spec's on monitors. I find out which panel they use and then go by customer feedback. the advertised specs are FUDz.
 
ajm786.

It seems like you hate the truth, but the truth is, there are some good LCD's, ie, they're better than smaller LCD and CRT overall.
I don't dispute that there's some gimmicks being used, but how many times do I have to tell you that good quality 24-27 will satisfy most people.....now obviously it won't satisfy someone like you, but you represent a tiny minority prepared to tolerate puny screens because of a spec fetish.
 
bpmurrGT said:
It seems that over the years Plasma has been getting better. Just look at a properly setup Pioneer Kuro next to a properly calibrated LCD and it will blow you away. However, even Pioneer is having to scale it back because of the cheap LCD junk we have out there now.
Click to expand...

I agree that plasma is not only better overall, but superb with blu-ray and HDTV, and depending on size, TV and DVD, DVD itself looks fine......obviously low bitrate SDTV might be somewhat soft.

It's interesting that you're so hard on LCD HDTV, becase based on what I've read and seen over the last 18months, both Samsung and Sony have excellent HDTV''s, granted Samsung tends to be a bit buggy, but that's usually fixed via firmware.

LCD HDTV's value is probably when mated to hi-def gaming where kids will be involved, ie, it's probably best to keep kids away from plasma's for gaming.
 
Dogmapog said:
ajm786.

It seems like you hate the truth, but the truth is, there are some good LCD's, ie, they're better than smaller LCD and CRT overall.
I don't dispute that there's some gimmicks being used, but how many times do I have to tell you that good quality 24-27 will satisfy most people.....now obviously it won't satisfy someone like you, but you represent a tiny minority prepared to tolerate puny screens because of a spec fetish.
Click to expand...

I think if you put a 24" Sony FW900 CRT next to any 24-27" LCD you would not make your statement that LCD PQ is good enough for most people.
 
panhead said:
I think if you put a 24" Sony FW900 CRT next to any 24-27" LCD you would not make your statement that LCD PQ is good enough for most people.
Click to expand...

trut so pure:)

there is no equal to the FW900 CRT no matter WHAT the display.
 
Dunan said:
trut so pure:)

there is no equal to the FW900 CRT no matter WHAT the display.
Click to expand...

I would pick one up if I could find a new one, but I can't find any new old stock :( The used ones are starting to get a little old, Sony hasn't made those in a while.
 
ajm786 said:
I for one am also sick of the increasing marketing crap that these LCD manufacturers put out. The sad thing is that most people go for it because they don't know any better. This is exactly what these LCD manufacturers want.
Click to expand...

Yep; this is the problem. People just buy stuff blindly or based on what some kid at BestBuy told them. As many have said in many threads here. The manufactures should be required to include tha pannel type in their specs and stick to it. The bait and switch game is getting old.

Dave
 
Dogmapog said:
I don't dispute that there's some gimmicks being used, but how many times do I have to tell you that good quality 24-27 will satisfy most people....
Click to expand...

An appeal to the masses does little for me. "Most people" list "American Idol" and "Dancing with the Stars" as their favorite shows. Is this some kind of quality metric? I personally don't care about the opinions of those who are generally insensible.

The problem I see is image quality is actually being reduced by development driven by the marketing department solely so they can quote higher spec numbers for things that have nothing to do with image quality.

Or push un-needed features like wide gamut, that actually makes the picture worse 99% of the time. Or false advertising claims like 178 degree viewing angles.

Next time you want to bring back a monitor and they want to charge you a restock, threaten to sue them over the 178 degree viewing angles that were not delivered. Enough is enough with these bogus specs.
 
Dogmapog said:
ajm786.

It seems like you hate the truth, but the truth is, there are some good LCD's, ie, they're better than smaller LCD and CRT overall.
I don't dispute that there's some gimmicks being used, but how many times do I have to tell you that good quality 24-27 will satisfy most people.....now obviously it won't satisfy someone like you, but you represent a tiny minority prepared to tolerate puny screens because of a spec fetish.
Click to expand...

Go*dammit. :rolleyes:

We are not discussing whether or not LCDs are good. Learn to read the OP before you post anything.

I beg to differ with you on the "spec fetish". You are the one with an LCD fetish. No matter how crappy your LCD, you'd be bound to call it "high PQ", most likely because you're simply trying to defend your purchase. Heck, I'm 99% sure my VP201b will kick your Acer's ass in terms of "PQ", since you like mentioning that so much. And don't even get me started on my Gateway Trinitron CRT.

Just because I don't blindly follow LCD marketing BS like a sheep to slaughter doesn't mean I'm denying the "truth". What is your truth? Belief in marketing crap? Because that's EXACTLY how you talk. If you valued your "PQ" so much, you wouldn't be enamored by the crap that you currently have, and would have gone out and got an SIPS based screen.

But wait, that's only for people with a "spec fetish". My bad. :rolleyes:
 
How important is the dynamic contrast ratio and does it give the appearance of better blacks vs. standard contrast ratio?

Is this really marketing BS, or should this help make my decision when buying a monitor?
 
Shottah_king said:
Is this really marketing BS, or should this help make my decision when buying a monitor?
Click to expand...
Yes, BS. To put it nicely. Dynamic 'Fraud' Contrast was created because of the underlying panel technology (LCD) could not generate the impressive numbers of other tech, like plasma, cathode ray or OLED that emit light without assistance from a backlight.

While dynamic fraudtrast might be more 'dynamic' for a TV screen, it is so hopelessly useless for a quality PC monitor that it can only qualify as a bad joke. A bad joke told slowly at a bad angle through the twisted neurotic, laggy language of a marketing shill overdriven with their fluorescent slogans of cartoon science. Think Microsoft Bob, only in hardware.

Other than perfect geometry, high resolution and light weight, LCD technology 'improvement' is the biggest bandaid sale ever. Although it's a great visual complement to the advent of mp3 format audio: lighter weight and lower quality.
 
Shottah_king said:
How important is the dynamic contrast ratio and does it give the appearance of better blacks vs. standard contrast ratio?

Is this really marketing BS, or should this help make my decision when buying a monitor?
Click to expand...

It's mostly marketing BS. Our eyes naturally adapt to changes in overall light. If you're playing in a dark room with a dynamically backlit monitor, your eyes will adjust to the changes in the backlight and the benefit is mostly lost. All you really get for your effort is more eye strain as your irises constantly expand and constrict.

However if you play in a moderately lit room or use bias lighting, then that extra light helps reduce eye strain and could potentially make the dynamic backlight a little more useful in creating a difference between bright and dark scenes. That is, unless, you have a monitor that adjusts the backlight to max every time there's a single bright pixel in a otherwise-black scene, like mine.

However a dynamic backlight will never help reveal dark details. (unless it's an IMLED backlight, but that's another story)
 
To add my 2 cents, there is definitely a reason for dynamic contrast: to tire the user's eyes unnecessarily, forcing him/her to shut it off immediately. :rolleyes: :p
 
ajm786 said:
To add my 2 cents, there is definitely a reason for dynamic contrast: to tire the user's eyes unnecessarily, forcing him/her to shut it off immediately. :rolleyes: :p
Click to expand...

Yes; exactly! If I see a high dynamic contrast spec, I imeaditly know it will be too bright. This is a big problem with all of the new pannels that have come out recently. I whish the so called "Pro" reviews would catch on to this and knock them down for it. Unfortunitely they look good on the shelf at BB and CC.

Oh well; at least we know what to look for.

Dave
 
Please, today someone sell me 2005 PQ from a Sony 34XBR960 when black was black, colors never seen before or since, and you'd swear you were looking out a window.
 
'Still got my trusty 19" flat screen crt here. Don't need the space - thats why I have a big desk. Also never saw the point of "upgrading" (downgrading?) to LCD when what I have already shows a picture on a screen. Guess I am lucky, never had a reason.
 
Synful Serenity said:
Please, today someone sell me 2005 PQ from a Sony 34XBR960 when black was black, colors never seen before or since, and you'd swear you were looking out a window.
Click to expand...

I recently bought a Kuro 5080HD Plasma and can honestly say its a worthy replacement of my 34XBR960, Ive never seen a non-CRT with true black levels like these Kuro's are able to produce (even in a dark room). 360 & PS3 games look absolutely stunning on the Kuro, it even makes the CRT look semi-bad in comparison if you can believe it, Took me awhile to admit it.

It's still #1 on Cnet's "Top HDTV's Overall" list: Link
 
mathesar said:
I recently bought a Kuro 5080HD Plasma and can honestly say its a worthy replacement of my 34XBR960, Ive never seen a non-CRT with true black levels like these Kuro's are able to produce (even in a dark room). 360 & PS3 games look absolutely stunning on the Kuro, it even makes the CRT look semi-bad in comparison if you can believe it
Click to expand...

The Kuro's are very good plasmas, problem is they cost almost 10X what the Sony XBRs cost.
 
panhead said:
The Kuro's are very good plasmas, problem is they cost almost 10X what the Sony XBRs cost.
Click to expand...

Actually I bought my Kuro for $1999 from Best Buy (right after christmas) and I paid $1899 for my XBR960 almost 2 years ago.. so $100 differance :)
 
panhead said:
I think if you put a 24" Sony FW900 CRT next to any 24-27" LCD you would not make your statement that LCD PQ is good enough for most people.
Click to expand...

Problem with that comparison is that the Sony whilst being good, is small, bulky and old......and as I've said a hundred times, SIZE does matter, especially for games.
Another problem with your comparision is that when doing side by sides, a weaker tech/screen can be shown up, but if you actually just go from a small LCD/CRT straight to one of the latest and greatest LCD,s, it'll be a meaningful upgrade.

Imagine going into a store and discussing a new large LCD with the salesman, and then a bystander pops in and mentions that an older, smaller, bulkier, heavier, uglier CRT would be better in his opinion......now that would be interesting.....but I think most people would laugh at you once they saw the size advanatge of the LCD.
 
Woo, another CRT vs LCD dogma preachfest. :rolleyes: CRTs are better for display, yes, but they're big, bulky, and heavy. They've been replaced. The replacement tech isn't perfect, and yes, there's a bunch of flaws in the current tech (mostly by companies trying to decrease the product replacement duration by adding flashy sounding buzzwordy tech that don't really do anything).

Bottom line is, find an LCD that looks good for you, and use it. Or use your old CRT until it dies from component failure... Buyer beware, research before you buy. And make sure you buy it from somewhere with a return policy. heh
 
Logan321 said:
Woo, another CRT vs LCD dogma preachfest. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It seems like some people don't want me to offer my opinion based on my ownership of a 26in 8 bit panel.
The point I'm making is that if you don't have the Sony{and even if you do, it still has it's problems}, ie, if you have a older and much smaller CRT or LCD, then a good quality 8 bit 24-27 will be a worthy upgrade.....that's all I'm really saying.

I should point out that when I was on my 19in CRT, I could tell that it wasn't as bright as my bedroom 51cm CRT, but my new LCD destroys them both for useable brightness+ I hooked my 19in up the other day and I couldn't believe how bad, small, oval and dull it looked compared to my new 8 bit hi-spec panel.
 
Dogmapog said:
It seems like some people don't want me to offer my opinion based on my ownership of a 26in 8 bit panel.
Click to expand...

When I said dogma, I wasn't referring to you... (it's not always about you, buddy :D)

Seriously, this is way off topic. OP said he doesn't like misleading "features" being advertised as benefits to the consumers on existing LCDs. I'm totally on board with that.

Small old CRT/LCDs aren't going to be as impressive as new big LCDs. Better? That's up to the individual to decide. Give it 5 years and everyone who has the new OLCD displays will scoff that anyone bothered to buy the inferior old backlit LCDs. And they might be right, or they might be victims of advertising propaganda.
 
We have talked so much about the Marketing BS, what are some actual USEFUL Specs when shopping for an HDTV/Monitor?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top