IPS vs PVA/VA and LED backlighting

videobruce

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
381
When I researched the difference four years ago and bought a Dell 2408WFP, IPS were more expensive so I settled for a PVA (or S-PVA in my case).

I now see IPS is more popular (and around the same price point) than the different types of 'VA' panels. I also understand IPS has a wider viewing angle, but blacks aren't as good as VA panels.
1.Is this true?

Two other question are,
2. Are the monitors with LED backlighting full or edge lit? I see no specs anywhere.
3. Why are IPS and VA panels more of a power hog over a cheaper TN panel (both with LED backlighting)?
 

Osirison

n00b
Joined
Jun 16, 2012
Messages
19
1. VA panels have deeper black indeed, but IPS has great blacks too. (My H-IPS type is very black also not like the deep blueish black as the first generation IPS panels)

2. Depends on manufacturer, most high end monitors are still on CCFL. LED isn't always better, they need a very good PWM with high switching frequency to make LEDs smooth otherwise it would create flickering.

3. Most of these screens have more hardware to control the panel better and more accurate PSU and PWM than the usual monitors to drive the pixels, also VA/IPS based panels need more power than TN to move the pixels.
 

videobruce

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
381
VA panels have deeper black indeed, but IPS has great blacks too.
But these VA's are better aren't they?
they need a very good PWM with high switching frequency to make LEDs smooth otherwise it would create flickering.
I beleive I remember reading about flickering complaints.
VA/IPS based panels need more power than TN to move the pixels.
Interesting, I didn't know this.
 

Osirison

n00b
Joined
Jun 16, 2012
Messages
19
VA panels are still better than IPS as it comes to black and static contrast ratio.

I have had both S-PVA and IPS and I did not miss the extreme deep blacks on the IPS monitor, colours are more intense making the IPS a better overall monitor.

Both monitors i'm talking about are Eizo SX series.
 

Chippy

Weaksauce
Joined
Oct 8, 2004
Messages
87
VA panels are still better than IPS as it comes to black and static contrast ratio.

I have had both S-PVA and IPS and I did not miss the extreme deep blacks on the IPS monitor, colours are more intense making the IPS a better overall monitor.

Both monitors i'm talking about are Eizo SX series.

Colours are not more intense, unless they are wrong on one of the monitors.
 

Medion

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
1,584
I currently use an A-MVA panel. My wife has an ACD, which is IPS. IMO, the IPS panel is the "better" one for most users, although I personally choose the VA panel for various reasons. However, two things on blacks and contrast ratio that get GROSSLY blown out of proportion;

1. It's all relative. If one monitor is brighter than another at both all black and all white, you're not going to notice a real difference unless they are side-by-side.

2. Contrast ratio is just that, a ratio of the whitest white to the blackest black. Take two monitors, and let's say that they have a 500 cd/m^2 measurement for white (so white looks the same on both). Now, on one monitor, we'll say that black is 0.25 cd/m^2. This gives it a contrast ratio of 2,000. For the other monitor, we'll give it a black measurement of 0.33 cd/m^2. This gives it a contrast ratio of 1,500. Roughly 500 points in the contrast ratio department might seem like a lot, but in this case, it's merely because of a slight difference in black levels. These numbers were also exaggerated, so when you get down to using real numbers, like 0.02 for plasma versus 0.05 for a good VA monitor, you're talking about a contrast ratio difference of 12,500 versus "only" 5,000 if their whites are 250 cd/m^2. Really, such a massive difference on contrast ratio all because of an imperceptible difference in black levels.

So what I'm saying is that, while I personally prefer VA panels for their better blacks and contrast ratio, this difference is truly blown out of proportion by many.
 

Osirison

n00b
Joined
Jun 16, 2012
Messages
19
Colours are not more intense, unless they are wrong on one of the monitors.

I know both PVA and IPS are both accurate on colour, i'ts maybe the overall image of the screen that looked nicer on the IPS but I can't be sure about that since I don't calibrate them.
 

Outbreaker

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 22, 2012
Messages
472
And again people are forgetting the most annoying think about IPS and that is aggressive AG-Counting and IPS-Glow.
An contrast against VA vs. IPS is 900:1 vs. 3000:1
 
Last edited:

belae

Weaksauce
Joined
Jun 19, 2012
Messages
123
I believe VA has slightly deeper black then IPS. Had HP LP2465 (VA) next to the IPS dell 2410. The black on HP is more pronounced then the dell, though just slightly. Because of deeper black, the VA panel tend to have slightly higher contrast then IPS, generally 1000:1 compare to 800:1. However for normal every day usage, you simply wont notice the difference after first min, esp if u dont have them side by side. Also turn down the brightness from what manufacture setting. For every day usage, imho ips still better then VA panels.
 

Outbreaker

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 22, 2012
Messages
472
Wrong you will notice a good contrast a lot in a dark room. If you use your Monitor only for office work in a bright room then it doesn't really matter what Monitor you buy, i would even use a TN Panel over a IPS Panel if i would game on it.
 
Last edited:

wyqtor

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 30, 2011
Messages
469
The diference between good VA and IPS is huge, especially if you have a trained eye. I just looked at an Asus ML249H in a store and the blacks are amazing compared to both my Dell monitors (even the U2311H which is one of the better IPS in terms of contrast)
 

videobruce

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
381
These numbers were also exaggerated
You aren't trying to imply that the consumer electronics industry lies are you/ :D
IPS and that is aggressive AG-Counting and IPS-Glow.
Explain?? :confused:

I would have to say,at least with PC displays, black levels are not as critical as with HDTV's as in watching movies, other than critical photo editing correct?

Ok, how does CCFL vs LED backlighting fit into any of this?
 

tk-don

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
324
The diference between good VA and IPS is huge, especially if you have a trained eye. I just looked at an Asus ML249H in a store and the blacks are amazing compared to both my Dell monitors (even the U2311H which is one of the better IPS in terms of contrast)
Which store has such a low amount of ambient lighting to make one able to judge any kind of black level? In normal office lighting the black level of neither IPS or VA would be detectable (not even close).
 

Osirison

n00b
Joined
Jun 16, 2012
Messages
19
About the AG coating, it was quite grainy on LG IPS panels, I Noticed this when switching from my previous Eizo PVA to IPS.

The IPS is a 27" Eizo production date August 2011, because of a noise problem Eizo replaced my monitor and got one produced on March 2012 and the first thing I notiched that the grainy rainbow effect was not there, the panel is smooth at full white screens.

So it seem that LG has changed their AG coating on new productions.
 

videobruce

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
381
Outbreaker; You spelled "coating", "counting" twice. I was trying to figure out what you were counting.

This "glow", is this from the coating?
 

Sycraft

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 9, 2006
Messages
5,112
So what I'm saying is that, while I personally prefer VA panels for their better blacks and contrast ratio, this difference is truly blown out of proportion by many.

Very much so particularly since human see in logarithmic scale, just like we hear. So really contrast ratio should be expressed in dB, not a standard ratio. So a CR of 1000:1 would be 30dB, a CR of 2000:1 would be 33dB. Each 10dB being a rough doubling in value as far as human perception goes. As such you can see you get incremental gains particularly with high CRs.

Also you need to compare it to other things in life. Like for example you might ask what a movie theater's static CR is. The answer is about 500:1, or 27dB. That puts in perspective these ultra high CR numbers a bit.

Not saying I won't take more, if you can give me a display that has more CR with no other tradeoffs of course I'll take it, but it is not this massive deal many wish to pretend.


In terms of LED vs CCFL they really don't fit in to any of this. All they determine is how the display is lit. The advantage of LEDs is they are thinner and use less power, and also warm up almost instantly. The disadvantage is they are harder to get a nice uniform backlight with and they do not have the ability to have as wide a gamut, at least not without using an RGB triad (which negates the power advantage).

For desktop monitors I wouldn't worry about it. Find a monitor you like and get it, ignore the backlighting technology. If you like how the monitor looks the details of how it is lit are not relevant.
 

videobruce

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
381
It's the power consumption and resulting heat that I'm concerned about.
The Dell 2408 is a power hog & space heater. :mad:
 

Medion

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
1,584
You aren't trying to imply that the consumer electronics industry lies are you/ :D Explain?? :confused:

Not at all. I'm saying that you take two monitors, one with a REAL CR of 5k:1, and another with a REAL CR of 1k:1, the differences to the human eye won't matter as it's all relative. You will notice a difference side by side. Sycraft explains it very well.
 

ashzero

n00b
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
3
I have 3 2408 wfps at home, and a u2412m at work.

2408's produce a more accurate color, deeper blacks and have a higher gamut range. this is important to me since i work with color a lot. the u2412m is still pretty decent, produces vibrant color. good every day use monitor with decent color reproduction.

been looking to upgrade my 2408's but haven't found anything worth upgrading to yet D; guess i'll still be using them for a little while longer. nothing wrong with them, all still going strong. bought in 2008, and 2009.
 

danxi

n00b
Joined
Jun 16, 2012
Messages
27
Anyone know why monitors today suffer from glow, even 3500:1CR AMVA panels? Is it because of the thin edge-led form factor?

I am at the same case with you ash, i can't find any desktop monitors that is fully superior to my 2709 in image quality, besides the lower 1200p resolution, the old SPVA panel still produces better colors thanks to darker blacks with no dark crushing, and no off angled glow or bad AG coating.

While people criticized SPVA for gamma shift, imho screen glow is just as bad or even worse, because the corner glow is evident without shifting your head.

Why did S-PVA just dropped off the radar? AH-IPS is not at all a better solution. LG sucks because most if not all IPS monitor uses their AH-IPS panels. Their CR seems to be stuck at 1000:1 for eternity!
 

Dcode

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 2, 2013
Messages
355
Outbreaker; You spelled "coating", "counting" twice. I was trying to figure out what you were counting.

This "glow", is this from the coating?

He has not been keeping himself informed.

LG and Samsung produce IPS panels with light AG coatings.
 

Mike63

n00b
Joined
Jan 10, 2014
Messages
34
Why did S-PVA just dropped off the radar?

Text and pictures on S-PVA panels look a bit grainy due to the split between sub-pixels at partial brightness. A-MVA panels produce a somewhat sharper image combined with black levels that are just as deep, and that's probably why manufacturers have dropped S-PVA for PC displays.

However, even A-MVA is noticeably inferior to TN and IPS when it comes to overall sharpness, which is why I say that VA technology in general is just sort of a gimmick. Yes, any VA panel will produce deeper blacks than any TN or IPS panel, but this comes at the cost of overall sharpness and uniform contrast. Since those two attributes are of primary importance for a PC display, an IPS or TN panel is probably a better choice for everyone except maybe gamers and those who use their PC as a TV.

I would guess I'm a typical PC user, and I find the "viewing cone" of a VA display much more annoying than IPS glow or the vertical shift of TN panels. I would choose a VA over a TN or IPS panel if I were using my PC ONLY to watch movies and/or play games with a lot of dark content.
 

SD45

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
164
Text and pictures on S-PVA panels look a bit grainy due to the split between sub-pixels at partial brightness. A-MVA panels produce a somewhat sharper image combined with black levels that are just as deep, and that's probably why manufacturers have dropped S-PVA for PC displays.

However, even A-MVA is noticeably inferior to TN and IPS when it comes to overall sharpness, which is why I say that VA technology in general is just sort of a gimmick. Yes, any VA panel will produce deeper blacks than any TN or IPS panel, but this comes at the cost of overall sharpness and uniform contrast. Since those two attributes are of primary importance for a PC display, an IPS or TN panel is probably a better choice for everyone except maybe gamers and those who use their PC as a TV.

I would guess I'm a typical PC user, and I find the "viewing cone" of a VA display much more annoying than IPS glow or the vertical shift of TN panels. I would choose a VA over a TN or IPS panel if I were using my PC ONLY to watch movies and/or play games with a lot of dark content.

I have an HP LP2465 and Samsung 244t, both S-PVA displays, in daily use. The HP is used for the Internet, and the 244t is used for Microsoft Word, Excel, and photo editing. I also have a low-mileage NEC LCD2490WUXi that I put into use periodically when I want a better display for photo editing. I also have an NEC LCD2470WNX, another S-PVA display, in storage.

I have followed the various threads about PVA vs IPS for several years now, and have seen the closeups of S-PVA pixel structure that purport to show why S-PVA is more blurry than other panel types.

My experience is different. I use these displays from eight to ten hours a day and have done so for over five years now. I prefer the 244t for text and spreadsheet work because its deep blacks make text and numbers clearer; whenever I have to use the NEC LCD2490WUXI for those purposes, text seems a bit gray and I long to get back to the 244t. On the other hand, the 244t is only passable for photo work because of its high contrast levels and the S-PVA "black crush," wherein midtones recede when looking head-on at an area in an image. I can and do calibrate these displays, but this is still the way they behave.

The viewing angle problem with TN screens is far worse than anything I have experienced with an S-PVA display. TN screens cannot be described as having uniform contrast.
 

Mike63

n00b
Joined
Jan 10, 2014
Messages
34
I have followed the various threads about PVA vs IPS for several years now, and have seen the closeups of S-PVA pixel structure that purport to show why S-PVA is more blurry than other panel types.

Why then do so many people make that argument if it isn't true in some way? For my own part, I've had several IPS, TN, and S-PVA screens over the years, and I would say that S-PVA definitely has a more analog appearance than the other two types. Some people will describe this look as "blurry" and some may not, but there's a definite difference in crispness that is easily seen when viewing an S-PVA display side-by-side with a comparable IPS or TN screen.

Clearly there must be some reason that display manufacturers are dropping S-PVA in favor of A-MVA, and given that both types have similar contrast ratios and are cheaper to produce than IPS, what else could it be except the superior sharpness of A-MVA?

The viewing angle problem with TN screens is far worse than anything I have experienced with an S-PVA display. TN screens cannot be described as having uniform contrast.

No LCD screen really has a uniform contrast. Even IPS displays have that characteristic "glow," which is in reality a non-uniform contrast. While I know most people here dislike TN panels, a vertical shift really shouldn't be all that annoying since it VARIES uniformly. IPS glow and the horizontal shift of VA look like glare on the screen, or at least that's my impression.
 

SD45

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
164
Why then do so many people make that argument if it isn't true in some way?

A lot of people just repeat what they read somewhere. I described my experience. YMMV.

For my own part, I've had several IPS, TN, and S-PVA screens over the years, and I would say that S-PVA definitely has a more analog appearance than the other two types. Some people will describe this look as "blurry" and some may not, but there's a definite difference in crispness that is easily seen when viewing an S-PVA display side-by-side with a comparable IPS or TN screen.

As I said above, I periodically use the NEC LCD2490WUXI, an IPS display, side by side with one of the S-PVA displays I own. I acknowledge that when you look at Internet pictures of S-PVA pixels, they seem to demonstrate why some people might find them "blurry." My conjecture, which you apparently overlooked, is that S-PVA's deeper blacks and contrast more than make up for that blurriness at the microscopic level.

Clearly there must be some reason that display manufacturers are dropping S-PVA in favor of A-MVA, and given that both types have similar contrast ratios and are cheaper to produce than IPS, what else could it be except the superior sharpness of A-MVA?

You will note that I said nothing about A-MVA. That's because I have no experience with it. Watch your logic, though: If A-MVA is sharper, that does not demonstrate that S-PVA is blurry.

No LCD screen really has a uniform contrast. Even IPS displays have that characteristic "glow," which is in reality a non-uniform contrast. While I know most people here dislike TN panels, a vertical shift really shouldn't be all that annoying since it VARIES uniformly. IPS glow and the horizontal shift of VA look like glare on the screen, or at least that's my impression.

Interesting that you postulate that TN's vertical shift "shouldn't be all that annoying." Do you have any actual experience with it? I do, and it annoyed me enough to swear off TN displays forever. And there wasn't anything you could call "uniform" about TN's vertical shift; like PVA's horizontal shift or "black crush," it varied based on the user's viewing angle. The difference, in my experience, was that TN gamma shift was more extreme. But that's me. Again, YMMV.
 

geok1ng

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
2,130
years ago i was a victim of IPS marketing and trolled forums stating that VA panel sucked big time.

i had:
a 19" and a 22" TN panels
a 26" old VA panel
a 30" IPS
a 24" LED AMVA
a 39" 10bits VA TV

About black crushing: i am not no certain that AMVA still has noticeable black crushing, after i discovered that my reported black crushing on the 39" TV was actually my fault for not setting the correct color space in the OS and actually recalibrating the TV for the new color space.

IPS contrast suck. IPS glow is not that bad. I have no experience with LED IPS panels, but after 2 LED VAs i can say that whatevere larger color gamut a LCD backlight offers is not worth the increased heat output in big screens.

anyone claiming better colors in TN, IPS or VA without calibrating their own displays with a hardware colorimeter is pulling truths out of their A$$e$. A properly calibrated TN would behave better than a non calibrated IPS even in professional work.

IPS is going the way of the dodo now that we have 120hz VA panels.
 

mathesar

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
1,590
Samsung 2333T (C-PVA) and Samsung PX2370 (TN) sitting side by side here, the 2333T has inky black levels but the motion handling & out of box color accuracy is awful in comparison to PX2370, Seems like It's always a trade off game when choosing an LCD depending on what your main priorities are.
 

Mike63

n00b
Joined
Jan 10, 2014
Messages
34
As I said above, I periodically use the NEC LCD2490WUXI, an IPS display, side by side with one of the S-PVA displays I own. I acknowledge that when you look at Internet pictures of S-PVA pixels, they seem to demonstrate why some people might find them "blurry." My conjecture, which you apparently overlooked, is that S-PVA's deeper blacks and contrast more than make up for that blurriness at the microscopic level.

The problem is those deep blacks only occur in a circular area towards the center of the screen. This is unfortunately true for A-MVA panels as well. Of course the shift in contrast isn't all that noticeable when you're sitting far from the screen, which is why VA panels make the best TVs.

You will note that I said nothing about A-MVA. That's because I have no experience with it. Watch your logic, though: If A-MVA is sharper, that does not demonstrate that S-PVA is blurry.

I've owned both types of VA panels as well as IPS and TN displays. Based on this experience as well as my observations of many different displays over the years, I would say TN>IPS>A-MVA>S-PVA with respect to overall sharpness. I'm not sure why it should be a surprise that TN produces the sharpest picture, since the RGB subpixels of a TN display are simple rectangles. The subpixels of IPS and VA panels are either not rectangular or else they divide into non-rectangular parts at partial brightness. Obviously the shape of the subpixels affects image quality and especially text, and again, it shouldn't surprise anyone that the simplest, most well-defined pixels will produce the sharpest images.

Interesting that you postulate that TN's vertical shift "shouldn't be all that annoying." Do you have any actual experience with it? I do, and it annoyed me enough to swear off TN displays forever. And there wasn't anything you could call "uniform" about TN's vertical shift; like PVA's horizontal shift or "black crush," it varied based on the user's viewing angle.

As far as PC displays go, all that matters to me is the view directly in front of the screen. The TN monitor I use at work is darker at the top than at the bottom when viewed from that position, but the shift is linear and really only noticeable at the vertical extremes of the screen. On the A-MVA screen I have at home, the contrast falls off very rapidly left and right of center, which is very annoying when I'm trying to skim a line of text. A vertical shift is less annoying to me since it occurs gradually as I move from one line of text to another.

As I said before, it's obvious that every LCD display suffers from a contrast shift of some type. Non-uniform contrast across the surface of the screen is simply an inherent flaw of LCD technology, but there are tradeoffs that can be made to try and minimize it. The specific tradeoff made in this area is I would argue is what mostly distinguishes VA, IPS, and TN:

- VA panels produce deep blacks in the center of the screen in exchange for a radial drop in contrast towards the edges.

- IPS panels produce the most uniform contrast, but at the cost of weak overall blacks and "glow" in the corners.

- TN panels produce moderately good blacks in a center rectangle of the screen in exchange for an overall vertical shift in contrast.

Which of these tradeoffs is best is of course highly subjective, but still TN panels are likely to produce the sharpest picture.
 

SD45

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
164
The problem is those deep blacks only occur in a circular area towards the center of the screen.

Really? I don't recall reading that before, and it's inconsistent with my experience using S-PVA displays. Text, for instance, is not more gray away from the center of the display. Of course, due to black crush, the blacks are deepest at the center of wherever your eyes happen to be positioned, but you are not talking about that.


I'm not sure why it should be a surprise that TN produces the sharpest picture, since the RGB subpixels of a TN display are simple rectangles. The subpixels of IPS and VA panels are either not rectangular or else they divide into non-rectangular parts at partial brightness. Obviously the shape of the subpixels affects image quality and especially text, and again, it shouldn't surprise anyone that the simplest, most well-defined pixels will produce the sharpest images.

I'm not sure that rectangular pixels have any particular advantage in displaying text and numbers, which for me at least is where sharpness is most valuable.

As far as PC displays go, all that matters to me is the view directly in front of the screen. The TN monitor I use at work is darker at the top than at the bottom when viewed from that position, but the shift is linear and really only noticeable at the vertical extremes of the screen. On the A-MVA screen I have at home, the contrast falls off very rapidly left and right of center, which is very annoying when I'm trying to skim a line of text. A vertical shift is less annoying to me since it occurs gradually as I move from one line of text to another.

This would seem to be purely a subjective reaction on your part. Mine is different. Each to his own.
 
Top