LCD marketing is pumping out increasingly misleading specifications and features. I am getting annoyed by the BS factor. In the quest to quote a bigger number than the other guy, the concept of usability and image quality has been lost, in fact some of these features make image quality worse not better. Now on to some of the current BS:
Dynamic Contrast: This seems to be there for no reason other than to artificially inflate specifications, while in actual use the "feature" is more a detriment causing light pumping effect that almost no one likes, with most people shutting off as soon as the figure out how to.
Wide Gamut backlights While this one may be more debatable, I think it worthy of inclusion, because very few applications are color aware and what Wide Gamut monitors result in, is over saturated inaccurate colors 99% of the time, but yet we have the race from 90%, 100%, 112% or NTSC. No matter that this just leads to more and more inaccurate color in the vast majority of cases. In order for wide gamut to actually be usable, we need a host of new standards. We need a communication standard to accurately communicate the monitors color space to the OS. We need a deeper color depth to reduce steps between colors (Ie 10 bit graphic cards with 10bit dvi or other interconnects) and we need a complete color aware OS that will map all applications properly to the output color space. Until then this is mainly a marketing gimmick that makes images over saturated and inaccurate.
Backlights brighter than the Sun. Everyone quotes their Max brightness in this game of specsmanship, which on bigger panels is similar to staring directly into a Fluorescent light bulb. Numbers like 500cd/m2 which might be fine for a TV 8 feet away but is insane for a monitor 2 feet away. That wouldn't be a problem if they went way down to a comfortable for everyone 80cd/m2, but they don't. Often minimum brightness before futzing with the LCD to have it block more light is around 200cd/m2. Nuts. Another factor of these super backlights is poorer black levels. Blacks get darker as you drop the backlight, but when you have a high powered minimum and tweak it down with LCD you have much poorer blacks than need be. So for usability, lower powered backlights would be better, but they don't get you a higher number on the spec sheet.
Viewing angle nonsense This has got to be one of the most leading and pointless claims. Like most of these specs, the blame lies with the panel manufacturers: Samsung, LG, CMO, etc... I will single out Samsung as the biggest weasels here. They seemed to be the ones pushing the number higher. For a while their spec sheets were claiming +/-90 degreees off access (or 180 degrees total). Some at the company must have eventually pointed out the mathematical impossibility of viewing anything on a plane when 90 degrees off axis to it, so they backed off to +/-89 degrees, hence the ever popular 178 degree number we have now. A number which is still practically IMPOSSIBLE. It is such a ridiculous assertion that I don't know why people quote without calling it to task. At 89 degrees off axis your are essentially looking directly at the side of the panel. You can't tell anything except whether it is off or on. This won't change dependent on technology used, IPS/PVA/TN are all equally indistinguishable at +/-89 (178) degrees. This is a farce bordering on illegal misrepresentations. Another reason to single out Samsung is not only did they push the numbers the highest, they actually have the worse gamma/tone shift at very small angles to go with it. See gamma shifts in this review: http://monitortest.blogspot.com/
There may be others but these are examples of some of the marketing crap we are being foisted that in many cases are detriments rather than benefits, or claims so outrageous they may be challenged in court as they are essentially fraud. I am sick of this crap.
Dynamic Contrast: This seems to be there for no reason other than to artificially inflate specifications, while in actual use the "feature" is more a detriment causing light pumping effect that almost no one likes, with most people shutting off as soon as the figure out how to.
Wide Gamut backlights While this one may be more debatable, I think it worthy of inclusion, because very few applications are color aware and what Wide Gamut monitors result in, is over saturated inaccurate colors 99% of the time, but yet we have the race from 90%, 100%, 112% or NTSC. No matter that this just leads to more and more inaccurate color in the vast majority of cases. In order for wide gamut to actually be usable, we need a host of new standards. We need a communication standard to accurately communicate the monitors color space to the OS. We need a deeper color depth to reduce steps between colors (Ie 10 bit graphic cards with 10bit dvi or other interconnects) and we need a complete color aware OS that will map all applications properly to the output color space. Until then this is mainly a marketing gimmick that makes images over saturated and inaccurate.
Backlights brighter than the Sun. Everyone quotes their Max brightness in this game of specsmanship, which on bigger panels is similar to staring directly into a Fluorescent light bulb. Numbers like 500cd/m2 which might be fine for a TV 8 feet away but is insane for a monitor 2 feet away. That wouldn't be a problem if they went way down to a comfortable for everyone 80cd/m2, but they don't. Often minimum brightness before futzing with the LCD to have it block more light is around 200cd/m2. Nuts. Another factor of these super backlights is poorer black levels. Blacks get darker as you drop the backlight, but when you have a high powered minimum and tweak it down with LCD you have much poorer blacks than need be. So for usability, lower powered backlights would be better, but they don't get you a higher number on the spec sheet.
Viewing angle nonsense This has got to be one of the most leading and pointless claims. Like most of these specs, the blame lies with the panel manufacturers: Samsung, LG, CMO, etc... I will single out Samsung as the biggest weasels here. They seemed to be the ones pushing the number higher. For a while their spec sheets were claiming +/-90 degreees off access (or 180 degrees total). Some at the company must have eventually pointed out the mathematical impossibility of viewing anything on a plane when 90 degrees off axis to it, so they backed off to +/-89 degrees, hence the ever popular 178 degree number we have now. A number which is still practically IMPOSSIBLE. It is such a ridiculous assertion that I don't know why people quote without calling it to task. At 89 degrees off axis your are essentially looking directly at the side of the panel. You can't tell anything except whether it is off or on. This won't change dependent on technology used, IPS/PVA/TN are all equally indistinguishable at +/-89 (178) degrees. This is a farce bordering on illegal misrepresentations. Another reason to single out Samsung is not only did they push the numbers the highest, they actually have the worse gamma/tone shift at very small angles to go with it. See gamma shifts in this review: http://monitortest.blogspot.com/
There may be others but these are examples of some of the marketing crap we are being foisted that in many cases are detriments rather than benefits, or claims so outrageous they may be challenged in court as they are essentially fraud. I am sick of this crap.