IPS overated?

[kache]

I said there were many. I never said they were made to order with your dream specs.

XD

That'll never happen, should even blue phase LCD with its 300 microsecond response be made into a monitor.

You also seem to not be aware that the DVI output on almost all graphics cards can introduce input lag into the signal -> output chain.

I asked a monitor with <1ms of lag, not a computer with <1ms lag.

 

[Sycraft]

That'll never happen, should even blue phase LCD with its 300 microsecond response be made into a monitor.

You also seem to not be aware that the DVI output on almost all graphics cards can introduce input lag into the signal -> output chain.

Well it might. While I agree DVI is something of a limit today because of bandwidth, Displayport can handle higher resolutions and refresh rates no problem. DP 1.2 has 17.28 Gbit/s of bandwidth which can do 2560×1600, 30 bit color @120 Hz.

So with that higher bandwidth interface, high rez and high speed monitors become more feasible, if the underlying technology can support it.

 

[dowant120hz]

There are many inexpensive IPS LCD, capable of real 75Hz refresh with sub one frame lag, the only marginal advantage you can attain with a TN screen is the 120Hz refresh with sub 1 frame and the "advantage" is largely on the spec sheet and not tangible in actual human perception.

Speed is not a reason to rule out IPS unless you are a zealot.

the human eye can perceive up to 500 frames a second (and possibly more)
75hz may be enough for you but there are many guys (and girls) that recognize the difference between 75 and 120 quite easily
if there was a choice i'd even buy a 240hz device because 160hz (crt max) isn't perfectly smooth for me yet

What proof of that do you have? I hear a lot of people who make statements about the evils of lag and how you need to minimize it and so on but I see little in the way of info showing that is the case. What evidence do you have that a monitor with a couple frames of lag really impacts gaming that much? You seem to take it as an article of faith, with no real evidence.

As I said, there is evidence to the contrary, that being all the gamers who do not have extremely low lag systems yet still have fun and do fine playing games. So maybe they aren't the best out there. I'll venture a guess and say neither are you, despite the system. The idea isn't to be the world's best, since you aren't going to, it it just to have fun.


Also, something that really gets forgotten is all this only matters in twitch games. Any of these arguments about it affecting skill go out the door as soon as you are talking about a non-twitch game, of which there are a great many in the world. People who play WoW or Civ 4 or C&C 3 or Mass Effect 2 or Total War and so on will not find their skills improved by a low lag monitor. So the possibility for it to have an impact on skill AT ALL is limited to a subset of games.

That's why I say choose the monitor that you can afford, and that you like the way things look the best. That includes latency, if it gets too high it could be annoying and everyone has a different tolerance. But I mean how it looks to you, not how it rates on some test. Pick the one that gives you the image you are the happiest with, that you will enjoy looking at the most. Because ultimately, that's what it is there for: To show you images. So whatever is going to give you the most fun gaming experience is the winner.

For me, it is a nice, large, IPS display that has beautiful colour. I can enjoy the visuals of a game thoroughly on that.



Not correct. You have to look at the whole system. What happens is that you see something happen and you react to it. How fast does the system process that reaction and how soon do you see the result? Well that depends on a lot of things. How long it takes your display to show it is one, you can't react until you see it. How long it takes you to actually react is a big one. However then it is to your input device, you tell the device "do this", how long does it take the system to get that signal? Once it has it, the CPU has to process what happens. Once it has done that, it hands off the data to the GPU to be displayed, the GPU can't work on displaying new data until it has it. Then there's the screen lag again.

So the time in between you doing something and it showing very well DOES have to take mouse, CPU, and GPU lag in to account. It has to receive the signal you want to do something, calculate what to do, hand that off to the GPU, and then have the display show it.

the cpu/gpu calculations can take place within a single frame and can be output directly with the next refresh
the mouse position can be updated every 1 or 2ms

but noticing lag pretty much depends on the person's skill and the type of game they're playing
some don't notice it at all
some don't notice it directly but notice that they suddenly suck at gaming
some notice it right away and even refuse to play (last street fighter iv evo tournament)

as much as i'd like a nice big picture i just can't enjoy 60hz with input lag
already returned like 10 different lcds over the years and back to crt

 

[kache]

the human eye can perceive up to 500 frames a second (and possibly more)
75hz may be enough for you but there are many guys (and girls) that recognize the difference between 75 and 120 quite easily
if there was a choice i'd even buy a 240hz device because 160hz (crt max) isn't perfectly smooth for me yet

Wow, so you're a progamer?

EDIT: I was wondering: did you try one of the latest 120hz monitors?

 

[Snowdog]

the human eye can perceive up to 500 frames a second (and possibly more)
75hz may be enough for you but there are many guys (and girls) that recognize the difference between 75 and 120 quite easily
if there was a choice i'd even buy a 240hz device because 160hz (crt max) isn't perfectly smooth for me yet

160Hz not smooth enough. Uhhh. Sure... This is the equivalent of the golden eared audiophiles who could hear all sort of differences from exotic concoctions on their speaker wires, that is until someone else blind tested them and they couldn't because it was all in their heads.

As I said before IPS is fine for everyone but the zealots.

 

[dowant120hz]

Wow, so you're a progamer?

EDIT: I was wondering: did you try one of the latest 120hz monitors?

hm no
i did make a little money and would be good enough to go pro probably
but ain't really worth it when you're not world's best
other jobs are way more money

i bought the 2233rz and the viewsonic 2268wm
both very nice for gaming
hardly worse than a crt in terms of response
but not bigger in size, poor backlighting, poor tn colors...
returned them

160Hz not smooth enough. Uhhh. Sure... This is the equivalent of the golden eared audiophiles who could hear all sort of differences from exotic concoctions on their speaker wires, that is until someone else blind tested them and they couldn't because it was all in their heads.

As I said before IPS is fine for everyone but the zealots.

implying i didn't already do a blind test
but the different is just huge if you can perceive it

oh and i consider myself an audiophile
but i certainly can't hear a difference between speaker wires

100% more frames is just a bit more of a difference than 0.1% audio signal degradation

 

[Snowdog]

implying i didn't already do a blind test
but the different is just huge if you can perceive it

oh and i consider myself an audiophile
but i certainly can't hear a difference between speaker wires

100% more frames is just a bit more of a difference than 0.1% audio signal degradation

100% more frames beyond visual perception, doesn't matter anymore than 100% more KHz beyond the hearing perception matters.

Just like you get people whining everywhere about how terrible compressed audio is, but when blind ABX testing was done, practically no one could actually pick out properly encoded 256K files from the uncompressed originals.

A whole lot of people like to think they are special, almost none of them are. Judging from your comments so far, you are not the exception (but you will continue to act like it).

 

[dowant120hz]

100% more frames beyond visual perception, doesn't matter anymore than 100% more KHz beyond the hearing perception matters.

Just like you get people whining everywhere about how terrible compressed audio is, but when blind ABX testing was done, practically no one could actually pick out properly encoded 256K files from the uncompressed originals.

A whole lot of people like to think they are special, almost none of them are. Judging from your comments so far, you are not the exception (but you will continue to act like it).

you seem to be projecting your own limitations on everyone else
"i can't see more than 60fps so logically noone else can"

things like perceiving 120fps or hearing the difference between compressed and uncompressed are not even very special
i guess 1 outta 5 can do that

and you not thinking i'm "special" is fine with me

 

[daveswantek]

100% more frames beyond visual perception, doesn't matter anymore than 100% more KHz beyond the hearing perception matters.

Just like you get people whining everywhere about how terrible compressed audio is, but when blind ABX testing was done, practically no one could actually pick out properly encoded 256K files from the uncompressed originals.

A whole lot of people like to think they are special, almost none of them are. Judging from your comments so far, you are not the exception (but you will continue to act like it).

Well said, and so true.

Dave

 

[monitorrat]

Agree. I also have this (~33ms lag) and don't notice it. If I don't notice it. I don't care.

My first LCD that I picked up before I heard anyone mention Lag was a Dell 2405(dreadful LCD). I don't know the numbers, but that had hideous input lag, it must have been worse than 2 frames. It annoyed my just moving the mouse around the screen, it was like it was stuck in molasses. I don't blame anyone who wants to avoid this. If they are hypersensitive they may notice on ~33ms lag displays (which are common). Too bad for them really, a lot of nice displays have ~33ms lag.

But this is moot anyway, there are essentially under 1 frame lag IPS displays and many of them. IPS is not a high input lag technology (unlike PVA which is). It is the features which drive lag on IPS displays.

There are many inexpensive IPS LCD, capable of real 75Hz refresh with sub one frame lag, the only marginal advantage you can attain with a TN screen is the 120Hz refresh with sub 1 frame and the "advantage" is largely on the spec sheet and not tangible in actual human perception.

Speed is not a reason to rule out IPS unless you are a zealot.

I don't know if it is true, but someone said the Samsung C650 has 100-120ms lag in regular (non-PC, non-Game) mode but whatever it is it's very noticeable, so easy to overshoot ever the mouse cursor. Once you get down to 25-30ms it's only just barely noticeable and not anything that bothers me, probably only the most hardcore of lightning reflex fast-twitch FPS players who are super serious, but for 95%, if not more, gamers, I'm sure that is plenty good enough. Although I'm not one to talk, I suck at pure fast twitch FPS games.

 

[monitorrat]

That'll never happen, should even blue phase LCD with its 300 microsecond response be made into a monitor.

You also seem to not be aware that the DVI output on almost all graphics cards can introduce input lag into the signal -> output chain.

Many games themselves don't handle everything with less than a frame lag too, jsut the way they are coded. It's tricky to even code them to be totally seamless.

 

[monitorrat]

160Hz not smooth enough. Uhhh. Sure... This is the equivalent of the golden eared audiophiles who could hear all sort of differences from exotic concoctions on their speaker wires, that is until someone else blind tested them and they couldn't because it was all in their heads.

As I said before IPS is fine for everyone but the zealots.

wait, wait, WAIT!

you can't seriously be calling those $3000 digital interconnects I got that balance the quantum frequencies and refine the treble a waste of my money can you

 

[Sycraft]

you seem to be projecting your own limitations on everyone else
"i can't see more than 60fps so logically noone else can"

things like perceiving 120fps or hearing the difference between compressed and uncompressed are not even very special
i guess 1 outta 5 can do that

and you not thinking i'm "special" is fine with me

No, you seem to be making stuff up without any backing. See it turns out things like limitations to the human visual system are things that scientists have actually tested, in laboratory conditions. Turns out that while there is variability per person, as one would expect, the range beyond which things look no smoother is in the 60-70fps area. Higher scan rates can make for less flicker with something like a large CRT, but they do not make for a smoother image.

So really if you want to back your claims up, you need to show that in a blind testing situation, where you don't know what it happening with the test, you can tell the difference between higher update rates. Testing when you already know the outcome is not valid.

Please remember there have been plenty of people that were "sure" they could do/sense something and couldn't under controlled conditions. Psychics, dowsers, people who can sense auras, etc are all convinced that they can do ti whereas others can't, and all of them prove to be wrong when tested in controlled conditions.

I don't know if it is true, but someone said the Samsung C650 has 100-120ms lag in regular (non-PC, non-Game) mode but whatever it is it's very noticeable, so easy to overshoot ever the mouse cursor. Once you get down to 25-30ms it's only just barely noticeable and not anything that bothers me, probably only the most hardcore of lightning reflex fast-twitch FPS players who are super serious, but for 95%, if not more, gamers, I'm sure that is plenty good enough. Although I'm not one to talk, I suck at pure fast twitch FPS games.

Ya triple digits of lag is for sure noticeable. You can notice that even in video playback. If the audio is not also being delayed, you'll see that the sound doesn't sync up withe the picture. For that reason I have to have all the processing on my TV turned off for cable TV, because the TV tuner doesn't support HDMI Lip sync. I'll have to wait till I get an HDMI receiver, which will handle all that internally.

There's no question that delay, or low FPS or whatnot are noticeable. The question is always at what point? Sam deal with audio. If I take a frequency range and EQ it down 10dB, it is extremely noticeable. If it do the same EQ by 2dB you can usually notice it, but it is rather subtle. If I do it by 0.1dB, you can't hear the difference.

 

[kache]

Many games themselves don't handle everything with less than a frame lag too, jsut the way they are coded. It's tricky to even code them to be totally seamless.

And that's why ESWC still uses quake 3...

 

[dowant120hz]

So really if you want to back your claims up, you need to show that in a blind testing situation, where you don't know what it happening with the test, you can tell the difference between higher update rates. Testing when you already know the outcome is not valid.

Please remember there have been plenty of people that were "sure" they could do/sense something and couldn't under controlled conditions. Psychics, dowsers, people who can sense auras, etc are all convinced that they can do ti whereas others can't, and all of them prove to be wrong when tested in controlled conditions..

i'd be doing a blind test under controlled conditions any day
my own testing already kinda was 100% objective
i used an rng script and didn't see the fps/hz before i made my choices

 

[blue001]

I believe that IPS is overrated too. Even though many claim it is the best panel type, I have used both IPS and PVA panels and think that the PVA panel looks a lot better because the blacks are significantly darker and there's superior contrast which makes images look richer. In all other aspects I cannot tell the difference which is why I prefer PVA.

 

[Walker]

I believe that IPS is overrated too. Even though many claim it is the best panel type, I have used both IPS and PVA panels and think that the PVA panel looks a lot better because the blacks are significantly darker and there's superior contrast which makes images look richer. In all other aspects I cannot tell the difference which is why I prefer PVA.

One big problem with PVA is the gamma shift. You get black crush/lose certain shades in the middle and get washed out image on the sides. That's pretty much the only reason I prefer IPS.

 

[Mr. Bluntman]

I believe that IPS is overrated too. Even though many claim it is the best panel type, I have used both IPS and PVA panels and think that the PVA panel looks a lot better because the blacks are significantly darker and there's superior contrast which makes images look richer. In all other aspects I cannot tell the difference which is why I prefer PVA.

One big problem with PVA is the gamma shift. You get black crush/lose certain shades in the middle and get washed out image on the sides. That's pretty much the only reason I prefer IPS.

I agree with Walker. I've had a couple MVA/PVA monitors and TVs and darker tones just look black, ruining the image making it look too dark. IPS may have glow at the edges, but still it's the best compromise between the responsiveness of TN panels and the high contrast of *VA. IPS FTW.

 

[monitorrat]

One big problem with PVA is the gamma shift. You get black crush/lose certain shades in the middle and get washed out image on the sides. That's pretty much the only reason I prefer IPS.

it's a mixed bag

PVA do have the gamma shift and edge washout on bright and medium colors

current IPS (none have polarizer) have white glow and color temperature shift on black screens or very dark screens

the best PVA also have deeper blacks and greater contrast ratios but you have to be more careful to avoid head on black crush (do make sure you have exactingly calibrated you set though as many HDTV have a gamma dive at the bottom (and rise at top) ends to try to make things have more pop and sometimes that can be confused with pure PVA black crush so sometimes people think it is worse than it is and never ever use black enhancement or black tone strengthen, etc. they just truly clip away deep shades) setting ITU R 709 gamma might help as opposed to gamma 2.2 too.

something like a movie with lots of starfields, Dark City, games with lots of murky rooms and levels might look better on PVA on average

 

[krameriffic]

Personally, the shift drives me nuts. It really amazes me that some people simply don't notice it unless you point it out to them! If you're someone who's not bothered by the colour shift, or the loss of detail in either the brightest or darkest areas due to gamma shift then I would definitely just save the money and stick with a TN panel, since that's the biggest difference with IPS.

But then you probably think 60Hz is fine for gaming. You see, colors don't really matter that much when really gaming. The difference is that almost everybody on here games while I bet there are very few professional video and photo editors. Yet everybody puts so much stock in the color and viewing angles of their IPS panels while they don't seem to notice that a 60Hz monitor is fucking balls.

 

[daveswantek]

it's a mixed bag

PVA do have the gamma shift and edge washout on bright and medium colors

current IPS (none have polarizer) have white glow and color temperature shift on black screens or very dark screens

the best PVA also have deeper blacks and greater contrast ratios but you have to be more careful to avoid head on black crush (do make sure you have exactingly calibrated you set though as many HDTV have a gamma dive at the bottom (and rise at top) ends to try to make things have more pop and sometimes that can be confused with pure PVA black crush so sometimes people think it is worse than it is and never ever use black enhancement or black tone strengthen, etc. they just truly clip away deep shades) setting ITU R 709 gamma might help as opposed to gamma 2.2 too.

something like a movie with lots of starfields, Dark City, games with lots of murky rooms and levels might look better on PVA on average

I agree. I have all three panel types plus a Sony CRT and there is pluses and minuses to all of them. Newer PVA panels have improved with regard to black crush and gamma shift. I noticed a big inprovement when I upgraded from a Dell 2407wfp to a Dell 2709W. Of course the input lag got worse, but it is still playable. When it comes to TVs, I would not trade my Samsung 52A650 for anything else I have seen in person.

I strongly reccommend the EyeOne Display2 for easy calibration. It is worth the price.

Dave

 

[setekh]

But then you probably think 60Hz is fine for gaming. You see, colors don't really matter that much when really gaming. The difference is that almost everybody on here games while I bet there are very few professional video and photo editors. Yet everybody puts so much stock in the color and viewing angles of their IPS panels while they don't seem to notice that a 60Hz monitor is fucking balls.

I doubt that, especially in this subforum. And you don't have to be either - you can as easily be an amateur or do no work at all - to make a big deal about colours.

 

[daveswantek]

But then you probably think 60Hz is fine for gaming. You see, colors don't really matter that much when really gaming. The difference is that almost everybody on here games while I bet there are very few professional video and photo editors. Yet everybody puts so much stock in the color and viewing angles of their IPS panels while they don't seem to notice that a 60Hz monitor is fucking balls.

Take a pole! I think you are right about everybody gaming, but I would also bet almost everybody on here builds web sites and that requires accurate colors. Who do you know that does not have a digital camera? That requires accurate color also.

Dave

 

[Jarmel]

Just like you get people whining everywhere about how terrible compressed audio is, but when blind ABX testing was done, practically no one could actually pick out properly encoded 256K files from the uncompressed originals.

I would love to see the ABX testing done in regards to 256k files as to me anyway 256 compared to lossless is dead obvious. There is alot more distortion and I can almost always tell it's 256 without even looking. 320 on the other hand is alot harder. I'm also curious as to what equipment they used during that test.

 

[Sycraft]

I would love to see the ABX testing done in regards to 256k files as to me anyway 256 compared to lossless is dead obvious. There is alot more distortion and I can almost always tell it's 256 without even looking. 320 on the other hand is alot harder. I'm also curious as to what equipment they used during that test.

Well you can do your own actually. Foobar has an ABX program you can use. So what you do basically is rip a CD then compress the tracks to 256k MP3 (I'd suggest the current LAME encoder, works well). Then decompress those MP3s to WAVs again and run an ABX.

Just be honest with yourself. By that I mean you take the tracks and load them in to the ABX program, listen back and forth, and write down your results as you do. Then, when you are done, you compare your written results to what actually happened.

However don't be surprised if the differences aren't quite as apparent as you thought.

 

[Snowdog]

I would love to see the ABX testing done in regards to 256k files as to me anyway 256 compared to lossless is dead obvious. There is alot more distortion and I can almost always tell it's 256 without even looking. 320 on the other hand is alot harder. I'm also curious as to what equipment they used during that test.

You must have something wrong with your encoding process if you are getting lots of distortion on 256K.

A good starting point for ABX testing:

http://ff123.net/64test/practice.html

This has a practice test and you can easily tweak to use your own WAVs, and change bit rates. Just change the script and it will handle the encoding, but you need to use the proper encoder strings.

I thought I had great hearing and am a very picky listener. 128K rips make me barf while my friends think they are fine. Using this test on my own music CDs, I can't spot the difference between the original Wav and a ~180K Lame VBR.

Bear in mind that is sitting in a quiet room, using digital interconnects, a Denon reciever and decent sounding Koss R100 headphones. Then clicking back and forth between the samples many times.

Not even close, I am no better than random. I often think I spotted a difference and then discover I am wrong yet again.

Most people taking a test like this discover their ability to actually hear the difference is no where near what they imagined.

 

[Jarmel]

Well a lot was an exaggeration but there is definitely a noticeable difference. I have a lot of lossless and compressed files on my DAP and I can almost always tell which is which when listening at higher volumes without looking at the DAP. I'm away from my house this month due to work but when I get back I'll try it on my rig.

 

[monitorrat]

I would love to see the ABX testing done in regards to 256k files as to me anyway 256 compared to lossless is dead obvious. There is alot more distortion and I can almost always tell it's 256 without even looking. 320 on the other hand is alot harder. I'm also curious as to what equipment they used during that test.

The itunes 256 ones are usually pretty good, at least for non-classical, and the few I recently gave a shot again, but you can still usually tell. But I have to admit some of their new 256 files came out better than I'd expected.

Most other 192 or 256 i've heard range from fairly to very easy to tell from lossless though.
Even older 320s were usually pretty easy to tell from lossless.

The original 128 itunes files were out and out trash.

 

[Whoisthisreally]

But then you probably think 60Hz is fine for gaming. You see, colors don't really matter that much when really gaming. The difference is that almost everybody on here games while I bet there are very few professional video and photo editors. Yet everybody puts so much stock in the color and viewing angles of their IPS panels while they don't seem to notice that a 60Hz monitor is fucking balls.

The decision is simple. When I am playing a game like The Witcher, or Mass Effect 2, I want better image quality from my monitor. With this in mind I am going to choose an IPS monitor over TN.

 

[StaticSurge]

This is an easy one all LCD technologies suck

For me personally the best compromise is a PVA panel, I cannot stand the pathetic on/off contrast ratios of IPS monitors. PVAs are approaching true 5000:1 while IPS has been stuck at sub 1000:1 contrast for years.

If all you do is computer work and image editing an IPS might be good. If you watch any movies play any games it'll look dull and washed out next to any recent monitor. I don't *care* how well they do viewing angles if they can't do contrast. Anyone that's ISF trained will tell you contrast matters more than anything else.

I have a viewing angle free display, a Pioneer Kuro, honestly it's not as big a deal as people make it out to be on this forum or they haven't seen any recent PVA. TNs are still trash though and to be avoided like the plague, they have REAL viewing angle issues and always will.

 

[pookeyhead]

Well.. first post on here, but I've been lurking for ages.

I'm about to buy a new 30" panel, and I've decided it will be a Eizo SX3031W.

Why? Because I was shocked at how bad the black "glow" was on my Dell3008. Sitting at recommended distances, the corners were grey compared to the centre. Watching DVDs off axis was terrible if the movie was dark. The AG coating was a nightmare, all shimmery, like it had a layer of frost over it, and fonts on my desktop looked awful.

Here's a video of it. It was taken in a bright room as well (2x 25 watt daylight balanced CFLs)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQUIaWKAdV4

How THIS can be the ideal technology I have no idea. Sure, you don't get the gamma shift of PVA, but you still get a CONTRAST shift with IPS. Honestly, the way some people describe IPS you'd think it was like looking at a printed image, with absolutely no change across the 178 degrees. Obviously, this is not so, and the blacks weaken massively as the angle increases, so who cares if colours remain stable when everything else goes to hell?

I just can't live with that black glowing and that MASSIVE off axis contrast shift ... it's terrible. How on earth are you all putting up with it when trying to edit dark images, or watching DVDs? Are you just convincing yourselves that it's great because you spent a lot of money on it? Honestly, I had my 3008 for 25 minutes, and it was back in the box ready for returning for a refund.

The only IPS screen I've enjoyed is the LaCie 321 I'm typing this on now, because the A-TW polariser almost illiminates all the glowing issues, and the AG coating doesn't look like there's frosted glass over the top of it.

However... no one uses the A-TW polariser anymore.

For this reason I would recommend a S-PVA panel over the latest glutt of H-IPS panels withthout any hesitation.

I had to laugh when I looked on the Eizo website. They have a screen selector app on their site, and you check the box for whatever use you intend for your screen. Check "Air Traffic Controller" and see what happens. All the IPS screens disappear. I wonder why LOL

As a photographer professionally, I work in a caarefully managed environment, with dim, balanced, diffused lighting. Given how bad it looks above with the full room lights on, you can image how bad it was with the managed lighting on!

S-PVA for me.

I can't help but think people just can't have anything except the latest technology, whether it's useful for them or not, then sit on forums defending it. IPS may give you more "e-peen".. but unless you work in a bright environment, and never a dark one, or never want to watch a DVD in a darkened room... seriously.. save your money. You'll hate it.

 

[Snowdog]

Well.. first post on here, but I've been lurking for ages.

I'm about to buy a new 30" panel, and I've decided it will be a Eizo SX3031W.

I can't help but think people just can't have anything except the latest technology, whether it's useful for them or not, then sit on forums defending it. IPS may give you more "e-peen".. but unless you work in a bright environment, and never a dark one, or never want to watch a DVD in a darkened room... seriously.. save your money. You'll hate it.

IPS isn't the latest technology. It isn't about bragging rights either. My first LCD was an S-PVA screen and I couldn't believe how awful it was.

It doesn't happen to many people, but the color shift of VA screens create a parallax like effect for me that gives me eyestrain/headaches and annoy the heck out of me. Using VA screens is like trying to see a magic 3d poster. I simply can't use VA screens as a monitor. I would even use TN monitor before VA monitor.

Though I have an MVA TV, when you sit 8 feet away parallax issues disappear.

IPS simply has the highest image stability and that is what I demand in a monitor.

All that said I wouldn't recommend a 30" IPS monitor either. I tried one, the corner glow is too much for me at that size and 30" IPS screens have a lot of uniformity issues as well. If you aren't bothered by VA image shift it is likely a better choice than a 30" IPS.

 

[pookeyhead]

I think it must be a personal thing with VA. I also have a Dell FWP2405, and it's great. I don't notice any gamma shift when using it normally. Obviously if I load up the test images on Lagom, then the PVA shortcomings are apparent, but in every day use I notice nothing. When in PS, you tend to drag the area you are working on into the centre of teh screen anyway, so your attention is focused there. When I want to asses the whole image, I tend to move back a little anyway.


With IPS (without A-TW) the shortcomings are staring me in the face all the time and I can't ignore them. I find the contrast shift and glowing very annoying when working on a dark image, and watching a dark DVD is particularly annoying.

I've also used a Dell U2410, and that was annoying also, so I'm not sure it's a large screen issue only.

NEC say they stopped using the A-TW polariser due to them not being made anymore (according to their FAQ), but LaCie still use them in some of their panels, so I call BS on that.

If they had the A-TW I'd jump onto the IPS bandwagon like a shot.. so long as it didn't also have the grainy, sparkling AG coating. They can't all do, because this LaCie 321 has a lovely smooth coating.

 

[Snowdog]

I think it must be a personal thing with VA. I also have a Dell FWP2405, and it's great.

NEC say they stopped using the A-TW polariser due to them not being made anymore (according to their FAQ), but LaCie still use them in some of their panels, so I call BS on that.

Obviously it is a personal thing. I acknowledge that most people don't have the issues I do with VA. Though other people may have their own issues. Just pointing out that you shouldn't assume that there is some kind of bragging rights thing. Some people prefer IPS, some VA.

Though it is Ironic that the 2405 was my first LCD I previously mentioned without naming. I found it intolerable (got rid of it the first week). In fact I consider it the worse monitor I have ever laid eyes on. It was not only the excessive color shift, but ridiculous input lag and smearing and ghosting. If you enjoy this panel, you likely will never be upset with any VA panel made.

Those Lacie IPS panels are just re-branded NEC monitors. They may have old stock, but when they upgrade to copies of the newer NECs they won't have the A-TW.

BTW your Lacie 321 is a clone of the NEC 2190uxi. It doesn't have an LG IPS with A-TW, it actually has a very rare NEC manufactured panel, their own version of IPS, which NEC doesn't seem to be going forward with.

I definitely agree about A-TW being a loss. My NEC 2490uxiSV is the best monitor I have seen and I wouldn't trade it for anything on the market today.

 

[Jonte]

Hmm, yeah, I thought it was strange when Pookeyhead wrote LaCie 321.
Has he confused the numbers? Is the 20-incher really named 321?!?
But then he wrote that his monitor has a smooth, non-grainy coating.
That sure doesn't sound like the NEC 2090uxi (LaCie 320) that I have.
It is grainy, although I guess things can be even worse on other models.


Anyway, the 20-inch 2090UXi (LaCie 320) also had the A-TW-polarizer as 2490 and 2690 once did, but it is of course gone now. I have one manufactured in march 2010 in front of me now, and it's quite a lot worse in terms of viewing angles than it's older brother. Not only on black/other dark colours, but overall. It could be some mess-up from LG in production though since I had a 2690WUXi2 with similar symptoms and they were both manufactured first quarter 2010.

I can see why you thought your LaCie 321 had the A-TW-polarizer Pookeyhead.
Look at this video... the camera operator has to go to more extreme angels to get the glow compared to the two other monitors in the video. The LG W2220 (Dell 2209WA) is the worst performer of them all.
IPS Glow Effect
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eA2IjlotJU

 

[pookeyhead]

Those Lacie IPS panels are just re-branded NEC monitors. They may have old stock, but when they upgrade to copies of the newer NECs they won't have the A-TW.

BTW your Lacie 321 is a clone of the NEC 2190uxi. It doesn't have an LG IPS with A-TW, it actually has a very rare NEC manufactured panel, their own version of IPS, which NEC doesn't seem to be going forward with.

You're correct. The LaCie uses a 21" NEC SA-SFT (NL160120BC27-02) Whatever it is.. it rocks!

Hmm, yeah, I thought it was strange when Pookeyhead wrote LaCie 321.
Has he confused the numbers? Is the 20-incher really named 321?!?

Yes. It's not a 20" it's a 21". I'm not confused... they still sell it here in Europe.

I can see why you thought your LaCie 321 had the A-TW-polarizer Pookeyhead.
Look at this video... the camera operator has to go to more extreme angels to get the glow compared to the two other monitors in the video. The LG W2220 (Dell 2209WA) is the worst performer of them all.
IPS Glow Effect
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eA2IjlotJU

That's pretty much like my LaCie 321.. almost zero glow, but all the colour advantages of IPS.. Win!

Until they replace the A-TW polariser with something else as good, I just can't live with that glowing.

I'll pull the trigger on the Eizo order tonight I think before I drive myself mad worrying about this. I DO like the lack of colour shift with IPS, but I feel I'm paying too high a price in terms of other defects. I was happy with my FWP2405. I knew it had issues, but they somehow didn't bother me. Besides, I'm fairly certain the Eizo will be better than the 2405 anyway.

I wasn't trying to be inflamatory.. I am just amazed that people can live with that glow. Mind you, Snowdog is probably equally as puzzled that I was happy with the 2405

My major worry is I buy this very expensive S-PVA panel and then someone announces a new 30" with some sort of polariser! That's the nature of upgrading a PC with any component though.

I may order the Eizo then never look at any monitor reviews again for at least 5 years

 

[Snowdog]

I wasn't trying to be inflamatory.. I am just amazed that people can live with that glow. Mind you, Snowdog is probably equally as puzzled that I was happy with the 2405

Nah, I got over being puzzled about what other people see after reading the reviews in the day of the Dell 2405 which praised it as being the top LCD of the time and then almost literally barfing after first hooking it up. It was instantly clear to me, that I can be annoyed by issues that other people don't even see until someone points it out. I also can't stand DLP projectors that my friends have, the RBE is so distracting.

My major worry is I buy this very expensive S-PVA panel and then someone announces a new 30" with some sort of polariser!

Now who is worried about having the latest and greatest?

I have the exact opposite worry. That when my awesome 2490uxi croaks, there won't yet be anything as good to replace it with.

It seems like there is a lot of advancement in LCD for TVs, but no one cares about computer monitors. The tech really doesn't seem to be moving into monitors.

 

[pookeyhead]

Now who is worried about having the latest and greatest?

I'm only worried if it's genuinely better... not just what people think If I was worried, I wouldn't have just spent all that money on a PVA panel.

Oh well... it will be here Friday.. I'll report back.

 

[Snowdog]

Oh well... it will be here Friday.. I'll report back.

I can't imagine it will be anything other than a pleasant experience compared to the 2405.

 

[Sycraft]

Though I have an MVA TV, when you sit 8 feet away parallax issues disappear.

I noticed that too. When I got a VA LCD I actually rather liked it, but when I got far away from it I always said "Man that looks good from back here." It just seemed to be better for far away viewing. So now I have an IPS monitor.

I have a VA TV though and that works well. There is noticeable shift, particularly in dark colours at certain angles, but you are not at those angles sitting on the couch watching it so it is not an issue.

Only thing that still bothers me with VA is the blurring of dark-to-dark transitions. My TV is much better at it than my monitor was, but you can still see it. Dark scenes with motion just look a bit blurry, whereas bright ones are crisp as can be.