AOC / LG Quality (Your actual experience)

[SpongeBob]

So I've been somewhat interested in the 24G2 and the G2590FX. So I find these 2 monitors have VERY good reviews. Then you go to the droves of Amazon reviews and it tells another story (especially the photos). So I'm curious what you folks actual experience with these monitors has been.

However based on my recent experience with 3 monitors which had decent enough reviews (non AOC) I'm finding that reviewers even from "reputable" sites are sorta full of crap. I'm pretty convinced at this point they are receiving cherry picked panels from the manufacturer, paid to do the reviews, or somehow just luckier than the rest of us, or they don't really know what they are doing and just writing what the manufacturer tells them. Not sure how they never seem to have any pixel issues, pannel construction issues, but 3 monitors I picked up all had at least 1 pixel issue, panel light bleed issues, etc.

LG has been getting a lot of buzz as of late how are they?



My experience:
Asus didn't blow me away pixel issue, panel kinda meh.
Dells were garbage dead pixels quality control.
MSI very inconsistent panels (see my thread).

 

[sosab]

I’m using one of LGs smaller 21:9 panels. The 25UM58. The panel technology itself is about 4 years old. However it’s been recently updated with 75 hz native refresh and freesync. It’s barebones so it doesn’t includes a lot of bells and whistles but I’d be damn if it’s not the best experience I’ve ever had gaming. The thing is like a window in front of you. I use it about 2 feet away.

 

[jbltecnicspro]

I have a 27 inch 1440p VA gaming model. It's fine. There's a dead pixel up top-left, but it's not enough of an issue that made me want to turn it in and play the panel lottery.

My only real complaint about the monitor is that the calibration controls are strangely and confusingly named. Thankfully, it's possible to dial in the screen to get an accurate image, but it took a little more monkeying around with the settings than I wanted to.

 

[jbltecnicspro]

When you buy a kick ass monitor you don't have to touch any of its monitor settings except for stuff like overdrive or XMP. These come out of the box calibrated already. I would say shy away from monitor control and use nv panel or AMD panel and adjust your color that way.

I disagree. Yes, it's nice when monitors come pre-calibrated, but if you already have the equipment and the know-how, then you're likely going to calibrate it anyways as you could always get it better than the factory. Also, what you're describing is altering the video card so that the image is accurate; which, while is fine, it means that the only way you'll have an accurate monitor is to use that specific computer. Any other inputs will be wrong. Calibrating by hardware (using the monitor controls) is better because you'll get an accurate picture no matter what you use. My two cents.

 

[Sancus]

Calibrating by hardware (using the monitor controls) is better because you'll get an accurate picture no matter what you use. My two cents.

This isn't even possible on most gaming monitors? To do it properly you need a hardware LUT. A lot of gaming monitors present you absolutely nothing but color temp, brightness and contrast controls, also, which isn't going to let you calibrate anything.

Most people who calibrate non-pro monitors are using software profiles in Windows.

 

[jbltecnicspro]

This isn't even possible on most gaming monitors? To do it properly you need a hardware LUT. A lot of gaming monitors present you absolutely nothing but color temp, brightness and contrast controls, also, which isn't going to let you calibrate anything.

Most people who calibrate non-pro monitors are using software profiles in Windows.

I don't think you necessarily NEED a LUT. For the most part, you should be good with an sRGB monitor (72 % NTSC) or at least has a mode that properly emulates it. Contrast, brightness, gamma, and color temperature should be enough to get you where you want to be.

My AOC monitor's color primaries get close enough to sRGB (delta E around 3~4) and I can dial in the grayscale to be on point and have 2.2 gamma tracking. My Samsung is a little different. You have to start with the sRGB mode, and then calibrate the gamma, contrast, and color temp to get the rest. Its color space also covers 93% DCI-P3, which is nice, if you have the content to support it.

 

[harsaphes]

So I've been somewhat interested in the 24G2 and the G2590FX. So I find these 2 monitors have VERY good reviews. Then you go to the droves of Amazon reviews and it tells another story (especially the photos). So I'm curious what you folks actual experience with these monitors has been.

However based on my recent experience with 3 monitors which had decent enough reviews (non AOC) I'm finding that reviewers even from "reputable" sites are sorta full of crap. I'm pretty convinced at this point they are receiving cherry picked panels from the manufacturer, paid to do the reviews, or somehow just luckier than the rest of us, or they don't really know what they are doing and just writing what the manufacturer tells them. Not sure how they never seem to have any pixel issues, pannel construction issues, but 3 monitors I picked up all had at least 1 pixel issue, panel light bleed issues, etc.

LG has been getting a lot of buzz as of late how are they?



My experience:
Asus didn't blow me away pixel issue, panel kinda meh.
Dells were garbage dead pixels quality control.
MSI very inconsistent panels (see my thread).

Rting

So I've been somewhat interested in the 24G2 and the G2590FX. So I find these 2 monitors have VERY good reviews. Then you go to the droves of Amazon reviews and it tells another story (especially the photos). So I'm curious what you folks actual experience with these monitors has been.

However based on my recent experience with 3 monitors which had decent enough reviews (non AOC) I'm finding that reviewers even from "reputable" sites are sorta full of crap. I'm pretty convinced at this point they are receiving cherry picked panels from the manufacturer, paid to do the reviews, or somehow just luckier than the rest of us, or they don't really know what they are doing and just writing what the manufacturer tells them. Not sure how they never seem to have any pixel issues, pannel construction issues, but 3 monitors I picked up all had at least 1 pixel issue, panel light bleed issues, etc.

LG has been getting a lot of buzz as of late how are they?



My experience:
Asus didn't blow me away pixel issue, panel kinda meh.
Dells were garbage dead pixels quality control.
MSI very inconsistent panels (see my thread).

Rtings.com doesn't cherry pick

 

[Sancus]

I don't think you necessarily NEED a LUT. For the most part, you should be good with an sRGB monitor (72 % NTSC) or at least has a mode that properly emulates it. Contrast, brightness, gamma, and color temperature should be enough to get you where you want to be.

My AOC monitor's color primaries get close enough to sRGB (delta E around 3~4) and I can dial in the grayscale to be on point and have 2.2 gamma tracking.

Well I think if that's all you're looking for, many good gaming monitors do in fact come out of the box calibrated that well if not better. For example the XB270HU I've had on my desk for the past ~5 years comes with an avg ΔE under 2 and, depending on your particular sample, max well under 4 and pretty close gamma. But if I'm spending the time to calibrate, I'd personally want ΔE max to be under 2 and gamma/color temp to be bang on, without messing up any of the colors, which can be difficult to achieve.

In any case, I think if your monitor comes with avg ΔE >3 the factory calibration either doesn't exist or is quite sloppy(or the panel sucks).

 

[kasakka]

This isn't even possible on most gaming monitors? To do it properly you need a hardware LUT. A lot of gaming monitors present you absolutely nothing but color temp, brightness and contrast controls, also, which isn't going to let you calibrate anything.

Most people who calibrate non-pro monitors are using software profiles in Windows.

Most have just basic RGB sliders. The way to go is to use those as well as brightness, contrast etc to get it as accurate as possible on the display itself and then the rest is handled by a color profile. Games ignore color profiles so having accurate color config on the monitor side is useful.

 

[jbltecnicspro]

Well I think if that's all you're looking for, many good gaming monitors do in fact come out of the box calibrated that well if not better. For example the XB270HU I've had on my desk for the past ~5 years comes with an avg ΔE under 2 and, depending on your particular sample, max well under 4 and pretty close gamma. But if I'm spending the time to calibrate, I'd personally want ΔE max to be under 2 and gamma/color temp to be bang on, without messing up any of the colors, which can be difficult to achieve.

In any case, I think if your monitor comes with avg ΔE >3 the factory calibration either doesn't exist or is quite sloppy(or the panel sucks).

See kasakka 's post above. I couldn't have said it better myself. If I was doing color critical work then of course I'd profile. But I'm not, so there's no point.