AG Coating Paranoia - The Official Thread

kevinsbane said:
I did a side-by-side comparison of my x220's IPS vs my U2311's IPS panel. The x220's AG coating is barely noticeable next the U2311. It is less noticeable than the AG on my Acer. It is the same as the x220's TN version of the screen.

It doesn't seem to me that LG uses the same AG coating on all their IPS panels. Something is up here. If the same coating is used on all IPS screens, then it's not an issue of small dot pitch/high ppi that makes the U2711's coating so bad in comparison to the U2311.
Click to expand...

How do you know the IPS screen in your laptop is made by LG. They do make the vast majority of IPS screens (just about all current IPS monitors) but there is a chance the IPS laptop screen is not from LG.

Even if LG does use different coatings it makes more sense that the one on laptops would be different from the one on monitors which could be the same on all their monitors (thus looking worse at 27" due to the smaller pitch).
 
Last edited:
Snowdog said:
How do you know the IPS screen in your laptop is made by LG. They do make the vast majority of IPS screens (just about all current IPS monitors) but there is a chance the IPS laptop screen is not from LG.

Even if LG does use different coatings it makes more sense that the one on laptops would be different from the one on monitors which could be the same on all their monitors (thus looking worse at 27" due to the smaller pitch).
Click to expand...

This picture indicates that at least one of the IPS panels in the x220 is made by LG. I cannot prove that ALL of the IPS panels in x220s are made by LG. I don't feel like taking my x220 apart to check the model numbers though. I am willing to bet that they are all made by LG though.

It's very possible that the coating is different. But that would mean that LG doesn't use a single type of coating for their IPS panels; thus it would be inaccurate to characterize IPS screens as a whole as having overly aggressive AG coatings, if they have one.
 
albovin what about your posts that can only say good to your nec monitor?
in this case why don't you post in the nec 2490 thread only? :D
 
Snowdog said:
This thread is about all types of AG issues, even including light AG vs Glossy as NCX brought up.
Click to expand...

I was just trying to point out that all forms of AG show noticeably PQ deterioration.

kevinsbane said:
It's very possible that the coating is different. But that would mean that LG doesn't use a single type of coating for their IPS panels; thus it would be inaccurate to characterize IPS screens as a whole as having overly aggressive AG coatings, if they have one.
Click to expand...

I think manufacturers can/have requested for LG to use less AG coating, such as the NEC 2490, Asus ML239H and of course the ACD's.

PRAD gave the Asus PA238Q a Very Good rating, I'm hoping it does not have aggressive AG coating....
 
I had a Dell U2410 IPS and an Eizo S2433W PVA on my desk, side by side, U2410 images are really grainy and dirt compared to the PVA.
 
I'm never going back to AG-coated screens after getting an ACD 27". The gloss doesn't bother me. Horrible, fuzzy, sparkly AG noise screwing up the image, does. All you have to do with a glossy screen is take care of your lighting situation and you're set.

Now, I used to have an old Dell 3007WFP for years, and I was pretty much fine with it even though it has mild coating. Mild AG coating is okay, but still sub-optimal (to me). The true offenders are screens like Dell U2711 with heavy coating (yuck!). I don't know how some people can tolerate it, but like others have said, to each their own.

I sure hope glossy screens become more commonplace in the future though.
 
weemies said:
I'm never going back to AG-coated screens after getting an ACD 27". The gloss doesn't bother me. Horrible, fuzzy, sparkly AG noise screwing up the image, does. All you have to do with a glossy screen is take care of your lighting situation and you're set.

Now, I used to have an old Dell 3007WFP for years, and I was pretty much fine with it even though it has mild coating. Mild AG coating is okay, but still sub-optimal (to me). The true offenders are screens like Dell U2711 with heavy coating (yuck!). I don't know how some people can tolerate it, but like others have said, to each their own.

I sure hope glossy screens become more commonplace in the future though.
Click to expand...

Everyone should read the post above.

"Horrible, fuzzy, sparkly AG noise screwing up the image" whinning followed by "3007 was OK".

For those who do not know: all 30" IPS have and have always had what AG camarilla calls "Horrible, fuzzy, sparkly AG noise screwing up the image"

Just another colorful touch of AG paranoia.
 
Last edited:
NCX said:
PRAD gave the Asus PA238Q a Very Good rating, I'm hoping it does not have aggressive AG coating....
Click to expand...

They ignore AG coating in their display ratings, so "very good" doesn't say anything about AG coating. It's sad, but they don't seem to want to change that. As long as there are idiots out there paying hundrets of dollars/euros for this crap and reviews ignore the issue completely, we won't see any changes from LG. Yes, I've been one of those idiots myself, but at least I learned from that mistake, I will never buy another LG panel with this kind of AG coating.
 
I remember when the Sony XBrites first came out and the world was exposed to glossy LCD monitors. There were complaints of eye strain, headaches, etc.

Perhaps some improvements have been made since then but, out of the current crop of monitors, I find glossy to be the worst of the bunch.

As long as everyone has a choice, I am happy.
 
kevinsbane said:
This picture indicates that at least one of the IPS panels in the x220 is made by LG. I cannot prove that ALL of the IPS panels in x220s are made by LG. I don't feel like taking my x220 apart to check the model numbers though. I am willing to bet that they are all made by LG though.

It's very possible that the coating is different. But that would mean that LG doesn't use a single type of coating for their IPS panels; thus it would be inaccurate to characterize IPS screens as a whole as having overly aggressive AG coatings, if they have one.
Click to expand...

A little funny note is that during the T43 and T60 days, LGs probably first screen IPS laptop screen LP150E05 would be one of 2 or 3 possible IPS screens to receive, if one ordered the 15" SXGA+ version. At certain points in time, a lot of users complained about a "shimmering", dusty or glittery appearance of solid colors, in particular whites on their new T43/T60s they received. Some went as far and bought new LP150E05s and received screens where this suddenly was not an issue any longer.
So indeed, something is wrong - LG likely has more than one supplier of AG films, so maybe this is also the cause of why some people don't mind (the silent majority) and others are offended about their unit.
 
 
A 4 year old review is not relavent, they ignore talking about AG coating in modern reviews.
 
albovin said:
Everyone should read the post above.

"Horrible, fuzzy, sparkly AG noise screwing up the image" whinning followed by "3007 was OK".

For those who do not know: all 30" IPS have and have always had what AG camarilla calls "Horrible, fuzzy, sparkly AG noise screwing up the image"

Just another colorful touch of AG paranoia.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you are trying to say. My point was that I think all AG coating is worse than no coating, yet I was willing to acknowledge that some coating isn't as bad as others. Have you actually seen both a 3007 and a U2711? The AG is very different and I would describe only one of them really horrible.
 
weemies said:
I'm not sure what you are trying to say. My point was that I think all AG coating is worse than no coating, yet I was willing to acknowledge that some coating isn't as bad as others. Have you actually seen both a 3007 and a U2711? The AG is very different and I would describe only one of them really horrible.
Click to expand...

By most people who have seen them, the 30" screens are described as having the next most obtrusive coating next to the U2711.

So if you think a 3007wfp is fine, you would think just about everything but a U2711 is fine.

While I haven't seen a U2711, people I trust have and it does seem to be the worse case scenario. Likely do to the smaller pitch being more affected by the same coating and the need to sit closer to it as well.

People should not judge all IPS screens by the worse case.
 
Snowdog said:
You can't join a thread and expect to limit it to one narrow range of discussion, just because it suits you.
Click to expand...

Hey Snowdog,

Sorry, I agree and I apologize if it appeared that I was trying to "reframe" the entire course of discussion. All I meant to say was that if manufacturers would just use less controversial coatings to begin with, I believe threads like this would be less likely to exist. My old Xerox TN display sporting XShield glass did an absolutely killer job at eliminating reflections under fluorescent lightning, and it didn't have that hazy "shimmer" that plagues LG IPS monitors like the U2711.
 
You mentioned Xshield monitors before, but every review I read of them said they were very glossy and reflective.
 
1fc1c1c2db5852e08ffc380475e26336c81ed54fa833221f6c63d50a57b3fce7.jpg


Looks like a happy medium to me, why not?
 
quantum112 said:
Looks like a happy medium to me, why not?
Click to expand...

That has a fairly sharp reflection of the light and the flash kind of throws things off. It might be slight less reflective than the mirror on current Apple displays, but not much.

Other reviews/images of the Xerox Xshield displays:

http://reviews.cnet.com/Xerox_XL795D/4505-3174_7-30788413.html#reviewPage1
"The bad: Expensive; limited adjustability; antiglare glass is distractingly reflective;
The XL-795D boasts a slick antiglare glass cover dubbed the XShield, which makes for a smooth-panel surface reminiscent of the infinity pools you see on MTV Cribs. While the cover cuts down on glare when using a program such as Microsoft Word, it's maddeningly reflective--to the point of distraction--when viewing darker screens."


http://translate.google.com/transla...&hl=en&langpair=auto|en&tbb=1&ie=windows-1251
"But then "viewing experience" makes it unlikely, rather the opposite. If you put the monitor screen to the window, then, as is the case with NEC LCD1970GX , it is perfectly clear reflection of your surroundings. So, consider this fact in its acquisition."
18057.jpg
 
Hmm...yes, I see. That looks even more reflective than my no-antiglare CRT. My laptop panel is about the same and it is very nasty to use it during the day.

There has to be some kind of material that offers a good compromise. Back when I had the SM226BW, I wasn't particularly bothered by the look of the screen (or maybe I just did not notice it back then, like many other things as well), yet it still did an excellent job of eliminating reflections. So somewhere around that strength might be a good start for these AG layers?
 
elvn said:
I designed my desk location to have room light sources and windows behind my monitor's back, and nearer lamps for the desk to be adjacent - none visibly reflected in my .... display.

.........

Light sources above and behind where you sit = bad. Even AG coated panels should not be polluted with light if you really want more clarity and color. That's why many high end NEC's come with three-sided monitor hoods even if they are AG coated, and why most color testing is done in dark rooms right up against the panel.

I understand why some people need AG coatings for environments that have improper/inferior lighting arrangements that result in light sources polluting the panel surface. Even so, that AG coating does not need to be over-aggressive,


....... common light-polluted environments they are geared for.

:
Click to expand...

I took over a corner with my corner desk facing outward. The desk against the wall with your back to the room is a recipe for light pollution on any kind of panel imo. I just cringe when I see direct light sources shown in display photos.. whether clearly in glossy or light coating/matte ones, or "blobs" on various ag coatings.

I can understand laptops and tablets that you use in various locations, or in some work environments where you aren't in a place you can design your desk and room layout vs direct light sources hitting a display surface (banks of overhead fluorescents are horrible), but your own place should optimally allow you to set your area up to avoid such direct light pollution vs your viewing angle.

..
 
Last edited:
Snowdog said:
By most people who have seen them, the 30" screens are described as having the next most obtrusive coating next to the U2711.

So if you think a 3007wfp is fine, you would think just about everything but a U2711 is fine.
Click to expand...

Wrong. I've seen a bunch of newer AG and a lot of it is just about as bad as the U2711. The 30" I was referring to is the original 3007 from early 2006 and I can tell you the AG was nowhere near as horrendous as the U2711. I can only assume they used a less aggressive coating back then.
 
I have seen a great many IPS screens over the years. Including multiple 30" Apple ACD in earlier days, I also had 3007-HC. I saw no real difference between the coating. All the 30" screens were slightly stronger than the smaller IPS screens I have seen.

About the only thing I haven't seen is the Dell U2711 which is reportedly a standout for strong AG.
 
weemies said:
I'm not sure what you are trying to say. My point was that I think all AG coating is worse than no coating, yet I was willing to acknowledge that some coating isn't as bad as others. Have you actually seen both a 3007 and a U2711? The AG is very different and I would describe only one of them really horrible.
Click to expand...

What you said about the 3007 means that you came here to say how you hate something (crystalline effect) but instead you said that the 3007 (has visible crystalline effect) was OK for you.

This has been the funniest post here so far.

Yes, I have seen both.
2711 has crystalline effect worsened by super fine dot pitch that makes this panel unacceptable for me (reading from the monitor).
 
albovin said:
What you said about the 3007 means that you came here to say how you hate something (crystalline effect) but instead you said that the 3007 (has visible crystalline effect) was OK for you.

This has been the funniest post here so far.

Yes, I have seen both.
2711 has crystalline effect worsened by super fine dot pitch that makes this panel unacceptable for me (reading from the monitor).
Click to expand...

I compared the monitors side by side and the AG were very different. I suppose the difference could have been smaller than I remember, and perhaps nowadays I would find both screens completely unacceptable. It was okay for me at the time. The U2711 never was, and believe me, I tried to like that screen but just couldn't.
 
Last edited:
weemies said:
It was okay for me at the time.
Click to expand...

As it was and it is now for the majority of consumers.
This funny incident has just underlined how exaggerarated the AG issue is.


The U2711 never was, and believe me, I tried to like that screen but just couldn't
Click to expand...

Sure. I wouldn't touch it.
Dell has two models that can be recommended: U3011 and U2412.
 
hp9000 said:
I got mine (Dell U2412) a couple of days ago. So far I like it very much. I had an asus pa238q for a few days but I returned. The backlight bleed on the right side was really bad. The dell is much more even, just a bit of IPS glow. And the difference between 16:9 and 16:10 is great for pretty much everything besides perhaps watching movies, which I don't. The antiglare coat doesn't bother me one bit.

G
Click to expand...

NCX said:
Was the AG coating different on the PA238Q?
Click to expand...

hp9000 said:
I really can't tell the difference, it *may* be a bit harsher but it is only visible on totally white backgrounds and if I'm looking for it. Most of the monitors that I've had lately have had some kind of coating so I don't find it annoying, I probably got used to it, and I actually dislike very much the reflections on non-coated screens like the one I have at work. I have a window behind and to the side and it drives me nuts, I have to move my head to the sides sometimes to be able to see what's on the screen.
Click to expand...

...
 
powruser said:
NEC's PA series and previously their xx90 series have very tight quality control. I doubt there would be any at all. I've used three 2090UXi's with no backlight bleeding at all. If there is a problem, they have great customer service and fast RMAs.
Click to expand...

NCX said:
Great customer service and quality control won't fix the aggressive AG coating these will use.
Click to expand...

...
 
albovin said:
This has been the funniest post here so far.

Yes, I have seen both.
2711 has crystalline effect worsened by super fine dot pitch that makes this panel unacceptable for me (reading from the monitor).
Click to expand...

Do you work for LG or something?
 
I have a NEC 2490wuxi and a NEC 20WGMX2 and much prefer AG coating vs glossy. My laptops/tablet are think pads all have AG and IPS displays too. One has outdoor display with 450 nits and you can see it in direct sunlight. When I look at glossy laptops of friends my eyes bleed similar to looking at iphone. To each his own.
 
Last edited:
Canadian in Berlin said:
Thanks for the reviews guys, reading this forum here, one begins to fear that all monitors currently available are so terrible that its not worth buying one...

Considering the monitor costs as much if not more than the PC Upgrade to feed it....
Click to expand...

10e said:
There are a number of great screens around, but we have some overly vociferous critics around here that often will blast a screen without ever seeing it.

You don't need to spend $800.00 - $1000.00 to get a good screen. There are lots of screens at half that price that are quite good. The other thing is you will often stick with a monitor a heck of a lot longer than a video card or CPU upgrade in my experience.
Click to expand...

XTF said:
The Dell AG issues seem to come up very often. Is that really overly vociferous critic?
Click to expand...

popowrx said:
I think it depends on the person. I have the aforementioned Dell and the AG was quite jarring at first on white backgrounds but my eyes have gotten use to it. I still see the fuzz but it isn't as bad as when I first got the monitor.
Click to expand...


...
 
Albovin, I'm not sure I understand the point you were trying to make by quoting me and NCX. Were you trying to point out the silliness of NCX's reply? Or did my post somehow not make sense. Can you clarify for me? Maybe I'm just being dense...

You quoted me stating:
"NEC's PA series and previously their xx90 series have very tight quality control. I doubt there would be any at all. I've used three 2090UXi's with no backlight bleeding at all. If there is a problem, they have great customer service and fast RMAs."

Then quoted NCX stating:
"Great customer service and quality control won't fix the aggressive AG coating these will use."

I was talking about backlight bleeding and how NEC has tight quality control in regards to that, not about the AG coating. NEC has nothing to do with the AG coating since LG supplies the actual panels that go into NEC monitors.

It's obvious to me that a good RMA policy doesn't matter if all the panels have the same AG anyway.
 
powruser, your posts are always reasonable, fair and technically correct.
They sound twice more reasonable when quoted in this thread.
Sorry if they happen to be next to AG offtopic trash which is dumped here to let forum members breathe normally in their threads.
 
I have to say one more time: if antiglare coating is bothering you, try lowering the brightness on your display. The reason one might find the 3007 ok and the U2711 unacceptable probably has as much to do with brightness settings as pixel pitch.
 
hard AG is only an issue because it's mandatory feature when getting IPS monitor :rolleyes: If there were glossy version of popular displays like it was with eg. Dell 2407wfp then we wouldn't have this topic. If user could buy Dell U2711 then he wouldn't bother removing AG from matte one :rolleyes:

as for hard AG itself its bothersome only for minority. Most people don't care and there are also people that actually like it like I do :D I just see nothing wrong with it and I have CRT next to it :eek:
 
Ok so i went into microcenter today and low and behold they had the u3011 on display, my mouth dropped to the floor. Ive played around on 2560x1440, actually i have an imac @ 2560x1440, but this x1600 makes a WORLD of a difference. I was stunned in amazement, first thing i did was start a browser on it messed around on it then the AG coating popped into my head spotted it and saw it. I see how people say it looks dirty, and yes it did bother me, but i know i can quickly get over that. I can look way passed that, now i can also see how it may a big problem on the u2711 being a smaller dot pitch.

Ive had my eye on the ZR30W which i will bet getting even though ive heard AG coating on that is slightly better, but if its no worse than the u3011 i can handle it. 3 weeks with it i should get over it and look way passed it.

They had MW2 on the microcenter pc so i fired it up on the alienware computer and was playing around, really saw no ghosting off the bat, but still would rather get the ZR30W to avoid any other ghosting in any other games. One thing i did notice is that PC was taking a performance hit didnt even bother checking to see exactly what the specs were but MW2 is not really all that damanding which brings me back to my other concern, playing games under 60fps. Its just that the 2560x1600 makes up for much more and its almost like in the next year or 2 gfx will be able to push that res at no problem so its like an investment. I just wish they had a ZR30W over there, my mind is still blown at the resolution.
 
NCX said:
The Asus PA238Q .... has aggressive matte anti-glare coating which makes whites+light colors look grainy and you may mistake picture noise for the anti-glare grain or vice versa.
Click to expand...

Wow!
What happened?
It's only "grainy" now.
Where has "dirty" gone?
 
I didn't feel like typing the entire accurate description, now kindly continue to view your monitor standing up and 75 degrees to the left rather than bothering people on [H].
 
The whole Matte/AG and glossy thing was so predictable. Old is new again, like mechanical keyboards.

For decades everyone was mainly happy with glossy, glass crt's and televisions. I guess because that's all we had.
But people complained they were to heavy, to big, to expensive, used much power and oh shit we could get radiation poisoning and eye damage :eek: I rarely heard that they were to glossy.

But many computer users complained about it, they wanted matte finishes and zero glare, they got it. People and reviewers praised the death of gloss. Matte finishes were the way to go..until the last few years.

Now they want... semi-glossy :rolleyes: :D

Obviously it comes down to personal preference.

I'm ok with glossy, my 46" Plasma TV is glossy and it looks damn great!
My PC monitor is matte, AG for now, I've never liked it. Sort of like CD's or digital music.

One look at an Apple Cinema display is enough to convince almost anyone that glossy is superior IF your willing to put up with the mirror effect and glare.

Most of my friends, family, co-workers dislike glossy. It can be annoying.
 
It is not personal preference, no one, if given the option would pick the same monitor with aggressive ag coating over the same one with light/semi-glossy/glossy coating due to the way aggressive AG degrades the image.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top