Higher contrast ratio OR true 8-bit color?

D

dparm

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 26, 2007
Messages
181
All other things equal, which should I be prioritizing? Would characterize my usage as mostly web surfing with a few hours of recreational gaming mixed in.

One LCD has measured 935:1 contrast with a 6-bit +AFRC panel, the other is 667:1 and a true 8-bit panel. Same price and all other features are the same.

Common sense tells me higher contrast = better overall detail, but the higher color detail is tempting too.
 
6 vs 8 makes 0 difference in 99% of modern displays
 
8-bit all the way - so long as the black levels aren't absolutely horrible (usually not for any 8 or 10-bit display). My ZR24W doesn't have the best contrast ratio compared to some panels; but seeing a full sRGB gamut again and not having muddy brown (and dithered!) dark colors just made a world of difference to me. Photos especially; but even small things as well like accurate grayscale color again (not a pseudo high quality grayscale made from dithering colors).

I can compare this to a 6-bit AFRC C-PVA panel I use at work, that even though it has a good matrix and high contrast; still has "brownish" dark tones and grayscale colors after simple calibration. Even if there isn't banding I prefer the pure color of an 8-bit IPS/VA LCD.
 
I have read that it's virtually impossible to tell the difference between the faux 8-bit and true 8-bit unless your workflow needs end-to-end 8-bit processing. Since I don't do photo/video editing...


Funny you mention the ZR24w, as that's one of the displays I had my eye on. The replacement ZR2440w kills it with better black levels, higher contrast, and more accurate color (after calibration...the ZR24w beats the 2440 out of the box with color accuracy).
 
Last edited:
dparm said:
which should I be prioritizing?
Click to expand...

Depends on the panel type and how sensitive you are to artifacts. If it's a question of PLS VS IPS I'd go with the 6-bit PLS for reading clarity (better AG). If these are TN panels then keep in mind many of them have a faint moving "static" pattern over the whole surface due to the AFRC. This can bother some people, but others can't even see it.
 
lawless2142 said:
8-bit all the way - so long as the black levels aren't absolutely horrible (usually not for any 8 or 10-bit display). My ZR24W doesn't have the best contrast ratio compared to some panels; but seeing a full sRGB gamut again and not having muddy brown (and dithered!) dark colors just made a world of difference to me. Photos especially; but even small things as well like accurate grayscale color again (not a pseudo high quality grayscale made from dithering colors).

I can compare this to a 6-bit AFRC C-PVA panel I use at work, that even though it has a good matrix and high contrast; still has "brownish" dark tones and grayscale colors after simple calibration. Even if there isn't banding I prefer the pure color of an 8-bit IPS/VA LCD.
Click to expand...
Brownish/yellowish dark tones look like poop compared to true 8-bit panel and usually you do see the dithering and banding (and other colour anomalies). In my opinion the difference is huge. Certain games like Mass Effect 1 can look rather horrible on 6-bit panel.
 
Mr.Pixel said:
Depends on the panel type and how sensitive you are to artifacts. If it's a question of PLS VS IPS I'd go with the 6-bit PLS for reading clarity (better AG). If these are TN panels then keep in mind many of them have a faint moving "static" pattern over the whole surface due to the AFRC. This can bother some people, but others can't even see it.
Click to expand...


6-bit IPS versus 8-bit IPS.
 
I had the ZR24w and Dell U2412M side by side for a while and I preferred the image quality of the Dell U2412M for better contrast levels. The ZR24w's blacks looked washed out and not true black by comparison.

As for colors, I'm using these for video and photography more than gaming, so I was concerned with color banding and accuracy. The gray ramps on the Dell are very good and mostly free of any discoloration due to being 6bit.

I also considered the HP LED replacement for the zr24w (model is zr2440w) and it has been reported to have color banding in the grayscale. That would bother me. I posted here about that issue and another user confirmed on another thread somewhere.
 
I saw that thread when doing some research, tbNB. The ZR24w matches my current TN panel's contrast and black levels so it will be no "worse" in that regard and should give richer colors because it's an 8-bit panel.

Logic is still telling me that you should go for the highest contrast display. Poor black level/contrast seems more noticeable to the average person than the ultimate color accuracy...right? I just wish true 8-bit IPS panels with LED backlighting and 1920x1200 native cost less.

Are there any B&M stores that will let me compare these technologies? I have TigerDirect, MicroCenter, Fry's, and of course Best Buy/Staples/OfficeDepot/OfficeMax within a short distance.
 
Last edited:
8 bit does not equal richer colors unless the panel is wide gamut= over-saturated colors or is purposefully over satured.

People are blaming color accuracy issues and the panel depth.

Unless you like to display full screen greys and color gradients you will probably never see the difference.

Most people fail to mention the fact that these IPS with true 8 bit panels (along with all other matte IPS) use aggressive anti-glare coating=greatly reduced color vibrancy and a grain effect with all whites and light colors.

comparison001.jpg


Can you tell me which is 8 and which is 6 bit? Left=6 bit TN right=8bit IPS, both are calibrated.

You can't get 700:1 contrast on the HP ZR24w unless you own a colorimeter for profiling, unless you want to ruin the image quality. The default contrast on the ZR24W=<500:1 and cranking the contrast w/o profiling will reduce the gamma resulting in washed out colors.
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/hp_zr24w.htm

TFT Central said:
If you want good black depth and contrast ratio, you will need to use a contrast setting of 100% in the OSD menu. However, you will need to calibrate the screen to overcome the gamma and wash-out issues associated with that change.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
NCX, thanks for the photo. You have a lot of vocal people here claiming the 8-bit is truly superior and that they can tell the difference. Everything I read says otherwise, especially for casual users without an 8-bit end-to-end workflow.

Looks like the ZR2440w is the one I'll be getting.
 
You're going to trust a 1000px wide compressed jpeg of two monitors probably taken with a cell phone and use it as proof that 6-bit vs 8-bit is not a big deal?
 
If all you're doing is web surfing and some light gaming on the display, and you're also not ridiculously OCD, then true 8-bit will not make one iota of difference to you.
 
I don't know if it is due to being 6-bit or 8-bit, but the colors look more washed out on the left monitor. Color transitions on the right monitor are definitely richer.

Personally, I am one who generally notices banding associated with 6-bit panels, but in the case of the 6-bit + FRC e-IPS panels, the difference is difficult to notice. Differences in black depth are more noticeable between different monitors, so I would personally pick something like the U2412M over the ZR24w, despite having a 6-bit panel.
 
Ruahrc said:
You're going to trust a 1000px wide compressed jpeg of two monitors probably taken with a cell phone and use it as proof that 6-bit vs 8-bit is not a big deal?
Click to expand...

No, I'm going to trust his expertise. The photo actually proves that to [my] naked eye it's basically indistinguishable.

The Asus ProArt 24" is so tempting since it offers the best of all worlds, but $500 is a lot of money.
 
NCX said:
Most people fail to mention the fact that most IPS with true 8 bit panels (along with most other matte IPS) use aggressive anti-glare coating=greatly reduced color vibrancy and a grain effect with all whites and light colors.
Click to expand...
Well, fixed. :p Not sure what you mean exactly by "vibrance", but the image is refracted by the front coating - the (three) frequencies of the light produced by the monitor remains constant, just refracted in more directions. Likewise, daylight or other external light sources will similarly reflect in more directions, if the surface is uneven.

dparm,
Based on what you want to use the monitor for, you should prioritize contrast.

No, I'm going to trust his expertise. The photo actually proves that to [my] naked eye it's basically indistinguishable.
Click to expand...
Even if it was 6 bit with no FRC, one wouldn't be able to see the difference from that image. I'd gladly post a shot of the same image shown on a 6 bit LCD (No FRC) if i knew where to find the image... just for the fun of it :)
 
Last edited:
I just ran that "gradient test" application that TFTcentral has on my old-ass Samsung 24" TN panel. There's banding in certain colors towards the darker end. But how often would I even run into that scenario and be paying close attention? Even in a game you are running at 30fps+ it seems like you'll never notice it.
 
There's some *VA panels that offer a high contrast ratio and 8-bit color, but most tend to have ghosting issues from what I've heard.
 
Don't care about ghosting, truthfully. I don't notice half the things people get very OCD about on this forum, no offense of course.

The BenQ EW2420 has 3000:1 contrast and is not IPS. Holy. Freaking. Cow. 1920x1080 = poo.
 
Last edited:
I have seen many TN panels that fake the colours by boosting the saturation and some kind of gamma trickery. In that case many dark detail are lost completely - you can still spot the dithering.

Besides, there are many IPS panels with ~1000:1 contrast ratio or even a bit better. Fujitsu's 23" LED 8-bit IPS monitor being one, according to PRAD.
 
Sadly, Fujitsu doesn't sell LCDs in the US. Or at least, nowhere that I've seen.
 
Fujitsu's aren't available in North America.

@Dparm

The BenQ EW2420 has poor color presets, the BenQ bl2400pt/ew2430 are better. PRAD.de has reviews of both. Really you should get the new Samsung S24a650D, it has the best image quality out of all the current VA panels. PRAD also has a review

@TK Don

As far as I know other than the NEC 2490 and that 26" Planar all matte IPS use aggressive AG. They aren't available any more so speaking in terms of modern availability saying all matte IPS use aggressive AG is accurate.

@BassDX

The truth is actually the opposite and it has nothing to do with bit depth which is also the point of that picture.

The IPS on the right has a 500:1 contrast ratio @ 120cdm/2 after calibration vs 900:1 on the TN to the right.

Like TK Don says, even on a 6 bit panel with no FRC one wouldn't be able to tell which is exactly my point. With most media content one will never be able to tell.
 
S24a650D is 1920x1080 though. I have used 1920x1200 for years and there's no way I will give up screen real estate. Even the 27" version is still 16:9.
 
Last edited:
The 6 bit one looked better to me in that shot. Ideally, one could find a 8 bit with good contrast as well, but anyway...
 
Personally, I am one who generally notices banding associated with 6-bit panels, but in the case of the 6-bit + FRC e-IPS panels, the difference is difficult to notice.
Click to expand...
Important is the precision of the signal transformations by the display electronic. Coupled with a LUT >8bit per channel you won't notice a loss of tonal values regarding the input signal.

Best regards

Denis
 
dparm said:
S24a650D is 1920x1080 though. I have used 1920x1200 for years and there's no way I will give up screen real estate. Even the 27" version is still 16:9.
Click to expand...

Used Dell 2408WFP or Lenovo L220x? Both are S-PVA (I believe) and 1920x1200, though both are out of production.
 
I threw together an Excel file with some of the important specs for these monitors. It's curious to see how certain displays excel in one area but fall short in another. The Sammy on the far left is what I have now.

The ZR2440w smokes everyone with contrast and black level, even out-of-the-box. The others are actually worse than my current monitor in that regard. The only thing the ZR24w has going for it is the calibrated color is more accurate. The Asus has outstanding out-of-the-box color.

This table doesn't reflect the Asus and ZR24w having 8-bit panels, unless that's maybe captured in the calibrated color/gamma values being better.

The ZR2440w really looks like the best bet but that 6-bit + AFRC panel still has me nervous (my current Sammy is 6-bit too).


LCDs.jpg
 
Here's a bit of advice; buying based on forumers and specs is HARD - so do yourself a favor and buy from a place that has a lenient return/exchange policy on LCD's. Even if it costs a little more this is worth it in the long run. The old problems of panel defects and "I just don't like it" syndrome aren't suddenly negated by IPS tech :).
 
Agreed. Unfortunately every store around here (TigerDirect, Microcenter, Fry's, and the big-box guys) only have the cheap $200 ones out on display. Fortunately I live near the CDW national warehouse and they do a will-call. You can buy/return right from there, and I get the corporate pricing extended for personal purchases. Gotta pay local sales tax (9%) but at least you can take it back if there's a problem or whatever.

I just paid $3.37 USD for PRAD.DE's review of the ZR2440w. He likes it a lot. He was very impressed with the contrast and black levels. It basically beats the ZR24w in every way. He said there was almost no visible dithering in the gradients, which is what I was most on the fence about. Marked it down for mediocre response time but I am not a twitch-gamer so I don't care. I'm going for the ZR2440w because of his review. It's only about $45 more than the ZR24w.
 
The only thing the ZR24w has going for it is the calibrated color is more accurate.
Click to expand...
Just a little note: Keep in mind that these values are often determined with help of a profile validation. Pre (against whatever - let's assume the sRGB working color space profile - and not within the original scope of such a function) and post (against the display profil itself) calibration values are not connected. A display with heavy undercoverages regarding your desired working color space will in most cases (linear behaviour, low colorimetric drifts) achieve a proper result within the profile validation although you would experience considerable constraints in your workflow.

Best regards

Denis
 
Last edited:
Well to be frank, I have tried loading up the different "calibrated" values on my own identical screen and I just don't like it. Accuracy be damned, but the so called "accurate" profiles look weird to my eyes. I guess I prefer a bit of oversaturation and a brighter display. I'm the same way with my home theater...run through the calibration discs repeatedly but I always end up changing it a bit to suit my taste.

Web browsing and gaming are not "calibration sensitive" to me.
 
Last edited:
NCX said:
As far as I know other than the NEC 2490 and that 26" Planar all matte IPS use aggressive AG. They aren't available any more so speaking in terms of modern availability saying all matte IPS use aggressive AG is accurate.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but dparm's purposes (web browsing and games) i don't see how buying used wouldn't be an option when he insists on IPS, since the improvements in today's IPS monitors doesn't seem to exist... a quick look on ebay reveals someone selling 5 2490's for $350 each (including touch screen). A new touch screen costs more than that.
Besides, wasn't the 2412 reported to have less AG coating? Or just forget this and go for the A850 Samsung with PLS

My point about 6 bit with no FRC is that the banding would be impossible to see on a photo of that size, but fairly easy to see in real life compared to even a 6 bit panel that uses FRC of some sort. :)
 
Last edited:
dparm said:
Don't care about ghosting, truthfully. I don't notice half the things people get very OCD about on this forum, no offense of course.

The BenQ EW2420 has 3000:1 contrast and is not IPS. Holy. Freaking. Cow. 1920x1080 = poo.
Click to expand...

It's a VA panel. Biggest drawback is response times. Great black levels(for an LCD monitor), usually very little AG, and cheap. 2333t from samsung also measures 3k static contrast or around 3x ips/tn panels. They are very nice if you don't care about ghosting. 500-800:1 contrast is pretty poor. Too bad LCD monitors haven't improved static contrast much. Contrast and black levels are very important. Even at VA pane levels it needs improvement.
 
Last edited:
That 2333t looks great, very well reviewed. Looks like it's discontinued now though, and it is only a 1080p screen (not 1200p).

Is there an equivalent version with 1200p?
 
dparm said:
That 2333t looks great, very well reviewed. Looks like it's discontinued now though, and it is only a 1080p screen (not 1200p).

Is there an equivalent version with 1200p?
Click to expand...

I think you should grab the ZR2440W for your requirements.

I concentrate less on contrast and more on minimum black level. If a screen has 800:1 contrast and above and can reach a low enough back-light intensity, the black level should be fairly low.

The ZR2440W has 1000:1 contrast or higher and can reach a minimum black level of .04 cdm/2 which is quite low.

The reason I say minimum black level is more important than contrast is because you are only going to notice the black level being too high on most modern screens when the lights are off or the brightness level is too high.

So in darkness, you turn down the brightness level and achieve a better minimum black level.

In terms of IPS panels and 6-bit + A-FRC you are not going to notice the difference between this and a true 8-bit panel. Most of the time any moving FRC patterns are hidden by pixel inversion of the screen or anti-glare, so don't worry about it.

I know I've had the Dell U2412M which has an almost identical panel to the ZR2440W next to my NEC LCD2490WUXi2-bk which is the same panel as the ZR24W and I can't see the difference even with dark color patches.
 
dparm said:
All other things equal, which should I be prioritizing?
Click to expand...

Why do you think you have to choose?

Dell 2408WFP = True 8-bit colour with over 1100:1 static contrast ratio

Newer monitors aren't necessarily better...
 
brod said:
Why do you think you have to choose?

Dell 2408WFP = True 8-bit colour with over 1100:1 static contrast ratio

Newer monitors aren't necessarily better...
Click to expand...

They should have kept making this one along side the u2410w. Atleast it was consistant and didn't have random defects like bleeding, bad AG coating, and terrible contrast. I have no issues with the color shifting, its minor. I tried a u2410w and some other IPS panels and sent them back and went back to my 2408wfp each time. The s-pva panels were the best all around monitors IMO and offered excellent movie playback.
 
Last edited:
Yeah the gamma shift is only visible on an all-white or all-grey screen, and I encounter approximately zero of those in actual PC use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top