A large monitor for photography is needed

C

Clockworks

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
5,269
I need a monitor that does color reproduction very well and is at least 22". I was looking at the Philips 230WP7NS and it seemed to be the best monitor at the moment. There are some negative aspects to this monitor though.

- Many people are complaining about getting dead pixels, more than the normal average.
- Price, ouchies (still cheaper than Apple)
- It only come in grey, poopy

I will also be playing some games on this monitor, any input lag? Is there also some problem with this monitor, much like the Viewsonic VX2025 DVI failing after a few weeks of use? Does it have any issues with any graphics card (Apple not working with ATI)? Is there any other monitor that you would recommend? Is there any new monitor coming out in the next coming weeks (I will be buying a new monitor by the end of the year)?

I will be calibrating whatever monitor I get with a Spyder2. My budget is at most $1000, hopefully less.
 
I recommend the monitor you have picked out for color reproduction concerns. 95% of monitors 22" and above are TN/VA panels, which are poor choices if you want accurate colors.

I don't know anything more specific about that monitor. I recommend it simply because it uses an IPS panel.
 
I would probably get this Sony:

SONY SDM-P234

23" S-IPS as well. $750 at newegg.
 
LCD's are getting better with their colors it looks like. Thats a plus..
Nice monitor, the only thing I would be concerned about is the 700:1 contrast ratio.
Other than that its getting good reviews.
EDIT: it's getting A good review as most sites are redirecting to the bonifidereviews.com site
 
Snowdog said:
I would probably get this Sony:

SONY SDM-P234

23" S-IPS as well. $750 at newegg.
Click to expand...


I also looked at that one, but it's almost 3 years old. Would it even compare to the Philips in terms of image quality and response/lag time?
 
I feel like the biggest LP3065 advocate on this forum...but it would seem to be by far the best choice for photo editing. It's 30", has almost double the resolution of that Phillips (4.2MP native), 6ms refresh, S-IPS, and uses a Wide Color Gamut backlight for 92% NTSC colors, as opposed to 72% on good CRTs and LCDs. But it breaks your budget at over $1600 and requires a dual-link DVI video card....but some things in life are worth paying for.

This monitor was released Nov. 1 but I'm still waiting for the first review to come out.
 
zzz said:
I feel like the biggest LP3065 advocate on this forum...but it would seem to be by far the best choice for photo editing. It's 30", has almost double the resolution of that Phillips (4.2MP native), 6ms refresh, S-IPS, and uses a Wide Color Gamut backlight for 92% NTSC colors, as opposed to 72% on good CRTs and LCDs. But it breaks your budget at over $1600 and requires a dual-link DVI video card....but some things in life are worth paying for.

This monitor was released Nov. 1 but I'm still waiting for the first review to come out.
Click to expand...

I was giving serious thought about getting a 30" screen but aside from price, there is no way I can put it on my desk.
 
clockworks said:
I also looked at that one, but it's almost 3 years old. Would it even compare to the Philips in terms of image quality and response/lag time?
Click to expand...

Certainly it would compare. Contrary to what manufacturers would have you believe, things aren't improving that much each generation. The Sony has the LM230W02 panel. The philips may have LM230W03 but I haven't even found anything that suggests that exists. It would only be a small incremental improvement. If you want latest generation S-IPS you can wait longer and pay much more for new 24" S-IPS coming soon.
 
Scyles said:
I recommend the monitor you have picked out for color reproduction concerns. 95% of monitors 22" and above are TN/VA panels, which are poor choices if you want accurate colors.

I don't know anything more specific about that monitor. I recommend it simply because it uses an IPS panel.
Click to expand...

why TN panel scored the best in this Color quality test? follow by PVA then IPS panel.

quote: Color quality

The quality of colors is measured with the LaCie BlueEye Pro colorimeter, which in fact is a Gretag colorimeter coupled to the software suite developed by LaCie.

Just to remind you, we work with a value called DeltaE. It represents a measurement between the color requested and the one really displayed on the monitor. The higher the result obtained, the less true colors are. The value is also counter-balanced for human eye color sensitivity.

Delta E > 3 the desired color is noticeably different from the one on the screen.
2 < Delta E < 3 color quality is satisfactory but a graphic designer probably wouldn’t be content
1< Delta E <2 colors are accurate.
Delta E < 1, the result is perfect.

Each time, 18 patches of color are studied and 16 results are reported in a graph. To facilitate interpretation of these results, here first is a table based on the average DeltaE for the 2 monitors studied.

Also, here is a table based on the average of DeltaE of the Acer monitor compared to the current 20 and 21 inches references.

IMG0017934.gif
 
k1mch1 said:
why TN panel scored the best in this Color quality test? follow by PVA then IPS panel
Click to expand...
Hmm, is it just me or does this contradict everything every user and manufacturer says regarding color with LCDs? So, why do TN panels score the best in this "Color quality" test? you never did explain why.
 
k1mch1 said:
why TN panel scored the best in this Color quality test? follow by PVA then IPS panel.
Click to expand...

Ever hear about calibration? Ever hear about manufacture variations? This model arrived a bit better out of the box, luck more than anything. Look at a recent batch before and after calibration. They are all over the place.
http://www.behardware.com/articles/619-15/updated-survey-13-lcd-20-5-6-8-16-ms.html

After calibration. The two best are the NEC's. Delta E of 0.2 and 0.3. Note your are bragging about 2.1. After calibration, every monitor was under 1.0.

In short anyone that concerned about color is going to calibrate their monitor. If I was doing graphics work I would go IPS all the way as it presents the most stable image across the screen. What is the point of calibration if your image changes across the screen. Both *VA and TN panels have various tone shift issues with screen location.

One other thing Behardware seems to test certain tones and misses big obvious things like the horrible banding on dells. They tested monitors back when they had broken firmware and bad banding, they never even noticed. So they often miss obvious things and they also have some pretty strong biases like being big PVA fans and haters of glossy screens.
 
Snowdog said:
Ever hear about calibration? Ever hear about manufacture variations? This model arrived a bit better out of the box, luck more than anything. Look at a recent batch before and after calibration. They are all over the place.
http://www.behardware.com/articles/619-15/updated-survey-13-lcd-20-5-6-8-16-ms.html

After calibration. The two best are the NEC's. Delta E of 0.2 and 0.3. Note your are bragging about 2.1. After calibration, every monitor was under 1.0.

In short anyone that concerned about color is going to calibrate their monitor. If I was doing graphics work I would go IPS all the way as it presents the most stable image across the screen. What is the point of calibration if your image changes across the screen. Both *VA and TN panels have various tone shift issues with screen location.

One other thing Behardware seems to test certain tones and misses big obvious things like the horrible banding on dells. They tested monitors back when they had broken firmware and bad banding, they never even noticed. So they often miss obvious things and they also have some pretty strong biases like being big PVA fans and haters of glossy screens.
Click to expand...

Does that mean that I can buy a decent 23/24" monitor (less than $500) and color calibrate and get the same result?
 
artmonkey said:
Hmm, is it just me or does this contradict everything every user and manufacturer says regarding color with LCDs? So, why do TN panels score the best in this "Color quality" test? you never did explain why.
Click to expand...
i didnt know the answer, LOL.
Snowdog said:
Ever hear about calibration? Ever hear about manufacture variations? This model arrived a bit better out of the box, luck more than anything. Look at a recent batch before and after calibration. They are all over the place.
http://www.behardware.com/articles/619-15/updated-survey-13-lcd-20-5-6-8-16-ms.html

After calibration. The two best are the NEC's. Delta E of 0.2 and 0.3. Note your are bragging about 2.1. After calibration, every monitor was under 1.0.

In short anyone that concerned about color is going to calibrate their monitor. If I was doing graphics work I would go IPS all the way as it presents the most stable image across the screen. What is the point of calibration if your image changes across the screen. Both *VA and TN panels have various tone shift issues with screen location.

.
Click to expand...
thanks for the info, so after calibration the difference between a tn and ips is just 0.3, thats not much difference.

Nec MultiSync LCD2090UXi =0.2
BenQ FP202W=0.5


clockworks said:
Does that mean that I can buy a decent 23/24" monitor (less than $500) and color calibrate and get the same result?
Click to expand...
good question, i'd like to know the answer too.

another concern is ips panels display dark color horribly, see this thread that wallpaper looks horrible on ips, the mountain is nearly all black/dark:
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1114635

the original image suppose to look like this:
ssslmi0.jpg
 
As many explained before, that dark image was from a poorly calibrated monitor.

As I said above Behardware completely misses things like Banding. Most TN screens have fairly obvious banding. Something you wouldn't want if doing color image editing.

S-IPS is the best. It calibrates near perfect, has the best viewing angle and tone consistency. If color work is important it is the one to get.

Allow me to illustrate. This is the same image on a different part of the screen, I am centered in front of the screen when I took the picture, not at an angle. Tell me what good is calibration if tone shifts like this? IPS doesn't do this, which is why I would only get IPS for critical work. Which is also why all the top Eizo/NEC professional color monitors are IPS. If image doesn't appear click link and hit reload on it.

http://ct.pbase.com/o4/04/606404/1/65452628.TGQ59HS0.pvaToneShift.jpg
65452628.TGQ59HS0.pvaToneShift.jpg
 
Snowdog said:
As many explained before, that dark image was from a poorly calibrated monitor.

As I said above Behardware completely misses things like Banding. Most TN screens have fairly obvious banding. Something you wouldn't want if doing color image editing.

S-IPS is the best. It calibrates near perfect, has the best viewing angle and tone consistency. If color work is important it is the one to get.

Allow me to illustrate. This is the same image on a different part of the screen, I am centered in front of the screen when I took the picture, not at an angle. Tell me what good is calibration if tone shifts like this? IPS doesn't do this, which is why I would only get IPS for critical work. Which is also why all the top Eizo/NEC professional color monitors are IPS. If image doesn't appear click link and hit reload on it.

http://ct.pbase.com/o4/04/606404/1/65452628.TGQ59HS0.pvaToneShift.jpg
http://ct.pbase.com/o4/04/606404/1/65452628.TGQ59HS0.pvaToneShift.jpg[IMG][/QUOTE]


So IPS screens have much better viewing angles and have very little to no banding?
Should I just go with the Sony SDM-P234 (a $150 difference is somewhat large)? And for final question on this post, is there anything replacing the Sony monitor?

Thanks everyone who helped out.
Click to expand...
 
clockworks said:
So IPS screens have much better viewing angles and have very little to no banding?
Should I just go with the Sony SDM-P234? A $150 difference is somewhat large.

Thanks everyone who helped out.
Click to expand...

Well you were looking at the Philips first and it is $900 +.

The Sony is a 23" 1920x1200 S-IPS monitor the 22" is a 1680x1050 TN. No contest to me, the sony all the way.

If you want quality for cheap. Get an HP 2065. 20" 1600x1200 S -IPS, ~$400.

I would pay more for quality. Or I would choose smaller with better quality over larger with less quality. Though I am not a size junky, increased resolution matters more than bigger pixels, I actually don't like bigger pixels, it just means things look more pixelated.
 
Both the Sony and the Philips use the same panel, the LG LM230W02. They are probably implemented differently but my theory is that if they are using the same major component (panel), would they not be able to get the same color reproduction after calibration?

I don't mind spending a bit more but for a 5 percent increase in quality, I'm going with the Sony.
 
kenpas said:
As Snowdog pointed out above, Philips 230WP7NS uses newer panel than Sony.
Click to expand...

He said "The philips may have LM230W03 but I haven't even found anything that suggests that exists." If such a panel exists, then the Philips will have a better image quality but he goes on to say "It would only be a small incremental improvement." In other words, the quality difference is not very much and might not be justifiable.
 
clockworks said:
He said "The philips may have LM230W03 but I haven't even found anything that suggests that exists." If such a panel exists, then the Philips will have a better image quality but he goes on to say "It would only be a small incremental improvement." In other words, the quality difference is not very much and might not be justifiable.
Click to expand...
According to tftcentral.co.uk Philips 230WP7NS uses the LM230WU3 panel and Sony SDM-P234 uses the LM230W02 panel. Differences between these panels are better response time and improved contrast ratio. To some better response time might be an important factor. The difference isn't big, but I would go for newer model. So far TFT Central is the only source I have found stating the actual panel models used.

I have been considering the Philips 230WP7NS myself, but will probably wait for the new 24" S-IPS displays.
 
It seems like I've settled on the Philips screen. Before I even think about purchasing it, how bad is the input lag? I know that the Samsung 244t is having issues and I was wondering if this will have the same problem. My other question is, does the Philips have some sort of fault like the VX2025's DVI does not work after a few weeks of use?
 
I haven't found much information about Philips 230WP7NS's input lag, but my understanding is that generally *VA panels have worse input lag than S-IPS panels. Samsung 244t uses S-PVA panel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top