• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

LCD Panel info goldmine

S

steviep

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
4,985
http://frog.h11.ru/?body=lcd

In Russian, but if it bugs you, translate it with babelfish.altavista.com. It's just the outside words that need translation. For instance, I was surprised to find out that the Viewsonic Vp912b/s to be a 6-bit TN+ panel... that counts it out for me :(

And another shocker... the apple 20.1" widescreen display (of which the Dell 2005fpw uses the same LG panel) is a 16ms LG panel... wheras they are listed as 12ms panels... I dunno which panel to get anymore :(
 
Bump... for those looking at which panel is inside which LCD.
 
steviep said:
And another shocker... the apple 20.1" widescreen display (of which the Dell 2005fpw uses the same LG panel) is a 16ms LG panel... wheras they are listed as 12ms panels... I dunno which panel to get anymore :(
Click to expand...

I could easily be wrong, but I believe the panel is rated for 16ms black to white but 12ms grey to grey.
 
Well, from what I gather in all this LCD research... the gray to gray is more important... but - does it make sense that the grey-to-grey is lower? Isn't it usually higher?
 
steviep said:
Well, from what I gather in all this LCD research... the gray to gray is more important... but - does it make sense that the grey-to-grey is lower? Isn't it usually higher?
Click to expand...
Yes it is. I believe it's Dell that claims 12ms grey to grey on their 2005FPW but that doesn't make any sense.
 
Well, if you consider that the Benq FP71e+ is rated 8ms yet hits 8ms less than 10% of the time and averages 20ms when you consider all color-to-color transistions, ms can be pretty meaningless, right? Especially when a 25ms display can outperform a "16ms" display. It's long past due for manufacturers to start getting their acts together here. I've always advocated either using a standard formula like the quarterback rating in football, or factoring in multiple sample points for a more accurate average rating, not ONE measurement of ONE change. Not only does it not tell you anything about the performance the rest of the time, but it doesn't say anything about the uniformity of the difference. Say there are 2 LCDs rated at 12ms, with average performance of 28ms. One display might actually perform near that 28ms almost the whole time, while the other might vary wildly going from 12 to 40 to 20 on a whim, but still arriving at the same average. I don't think you need me to tell you which is preferable. Of course, we'd never know any of this were it not for independent reviewing bodies measuring things like this...so let's see the manufacturers adopt a universal standard for these things.

This still goes on because the manufacturers like to toss out these ms figures like buzzwords. They are definitely the most prominent spec besides screen size and are used as major selling points to compete...It's all marketing. And the reason why it'd be hard to get a true ms standard adopted is because it would decrease all the relative ratings of all LCDs, while the manufacturers want to keep pushing lower and lower numbers. It's like cars sold in the current year being advertised as next year's models. They keep selling the next year's models earlier and earlier in the year, so much so that they might as well call it the current year's, like a 2006 car sold in May or April being changed to a 2005 model, which is what it really is. Of course, buyers like to think of their cars being as "new" as possible, so that in 2009 they will think of their 2006 car as being 3 years old (when it's really 4), and they will forget that it was actually bought in 2005. It would be hard to get them to adjust, just as it would be hard for consumers to swallow an across the board reduction in ms rating. Also, companies wouldn't want the public at large to find out that they've been mislead about the ratings this whole time.
 
dont get too cauight up in specs, because seeing how the monitor acts in action is most important.

just something to consider
 
It's not so much specs, as this page is useful to tell you which monitor has which panel. And then you can go to the panel-maker's website to view the LCD's "real" specs, instead of the LCD-manufacturer's "test specs"

And, of course, what TYPE of panel it is (TN, IPS, VA) - you can get a very good idea of how many colours, how good the refresh rate, etc. etc. just by seeing what type of panel it uses, without looking at specs. It's been one of the most useful pages in my LCD research.
 
i agree with that
that site is good stuff except ive heard there is no standardized way of testing stuff such as response time and contrase (each manu. does it differently to obtain favorable answers). Do the creators of this site do all the testing themselves or what?
 
I'm not sure... but they are quite accurate from what I can see... bump.
 
Bumped this again as more people requested this type of info.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top