NEC 20WGX2 complete shit for photos?

Snowdog said:
I think all you proved is your insensitivity to the effect. I also owned a Dell 2405 that did the same thing. After this I have test images on a web page and I test them out at stores. I checked out the VX2025 and it does the same thing. While something of a blunt instrument Behardware gives some indication of which monitors wash out at angle. Top of the page is yours and it is standard PVA/MVA washout. VA tech is the worse going when it comes to small horizontal angle washout. Even lowly TN is better. Though IPS clearly has the best angular response by far. The way manufacturers quote numbers is shamefull at 10:1 contrast or even 5:1 contrast. What a farce.

Panel images:
http://www.behardware.com/articles/619-17/updated-survey-13-lcd-20-5-6-8-16-ms.html
Click to expand...

Frankly I couldn't care less what it looks like at 50 degree angles. If you're buying LCDs based on that issue, no wonder you're grumpy.
 
Varmint said:
Frankly I couldn't care less what it looks like at 50 degree angles. If you're buying LCDs based on that issue, no wonder you're grumpy.
Click to expand...

I really don't care about 50 degrees either. But as my testing and my photo shows, The screens that show this behavior at 50 degrees start to suck even when you are perfectly centered and that is what I am "grumpy" about. I didn't buy and get rid of two PVA screens because they fell apart at 50 degrees. I got rid of them because they started to fall apart right away when sitting centered behind the screen.

Now I verify the behavior by testing before I buy again. Every PVA/MVA screen I looked at does this. TN screens are better in the horizontal direction, but worse in the vertical direction.

So far only IPS screens have reasonable viewing angles. What I am actually grumpy about is being lied to by manufacturers about viewing angles like 178 degrees on my PVA panels.
 
Snowdog said:
What I am actually grumpy about is being lied to by manufacturers about viewing angles like 178 degrees on my PVA panels.
Click to expand...

They aren't really lieing to you. What they are saying is that at that angle you can still see the screen. Washed out or not doesn't matter to them. ;)

178 degrees is almost 90 degrees left/right. Who looks at a monitor from 90 degrees off center? The numbers they publish for viewing angles must be taken with a very large grain of salt.
 
I have to ask, is what technically looks best actually the best? Is what is mathematically and scientifically perfect really better than what is most appealing and most comfortable? I only ask this because many of you seem to be "ranking" your monitor based on whether it can display the different colors earlier.
 
I don't think that square test tests anything useful, except for maybe brightness of your display. My LCD can display a change at 3,3,3. On my Samsung CRT, I can only see a difference at 5,5,5 or maybe even higher. So does my LCD have better blacks than my CRT? Hell no! My Samsung CRT has 100x better blacks than my LCD - and that comes from playing many many dark games on both displays.

So honestly, i'm not sure whats useful about this test.
 
Liekomg said:
I don't think that square test tests anything useful, except for maybe brightness of your display. My LCD can display a change at 3,3,3. On my Samsung CRT, I can only see a difference at 5,5,5 or maybe even higher. So does my LCD have better blacks than my CRT? Hell no! My Samsung CRT has 100x better blacks than my LCD - and that comes from playing many many dark games on both displays.

So honestly, i'm not sure whats useful about this test.
Click to expand...

It's about greyscale. For things like picture editing being able to distinguish more detail from one colour to another is really useful. Although this analogy is really bad (I admit) it's like having a monitor capeable of 16colour vs 16bit.

It's not about the fact that there is higher brightness or not, it's about how many shades of grey. People turning up their monitors brightness to be able to see the colour change at a lower number are defeating the purpose of the test because then they are destroying their purest dark black levels.

Dunno if this is making sense or not.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
It's not about the fact that there is higher brightness or not, it's about how many shades of grey. People turning up their monitors brightness to be able to see the colour change at a lower number are defeating the purpose of the test because then they are destroying their purest dark black levels.
Click to expand...

i tried changing the brightness on my Acer from the default 90 all the way down to 30, where the screen's pretty dark. I use 70 normally. Contrast is default 61.

It had no effect on when I first see the gray box. It does however make the 3,3,3 harder to see, but you still see it.
 
Room light plays a factor as well. If your room is darker you will see dark tones as lighter, so you will see the difference sooner.

My CRT has an SRGB setting that also makes this much more visible, but again I find black is no longer as black as I like it in this mode.

I wouldn't mark this as a definitive test for anything. If your number is too high to make you happy I am sure you can get it lower by using graphic card controls of gamma/contrast/brightness. I know on my LCD, controls under DVI are minimal and have minimal impact on these values. But graphics card controls can change that.
 
Snowdog said:
I really don't care about 50 degrees either. But as my testing and my photo shows, The screens that show this behavior at 50 degrees start to suck even when you are perfectly centered and that is what I am "grumpy" about. I didn't buy and get rid of two PVA screens because they fell apart at 50 degrees. I got rid of them because they started to fall apart right away when sitting centered behind the screen.

Now I verify the behavior by testing before I buy again. Every PVA/MVA screen I looked at does this. TN screens are better in the horizontal direction, but worse in the vertical direction.

So far only IPS screens have reasonable viewing angles. What I am actually grumpy about is being lied to by manufacturers about viewing angles like 178 degrees on my PVA panels.
Click to expand...

I totally agree and understand your frustration but you have to realize that this is not just an issue with viewing angle. Most monitor manufacturers take their specs right off of the panel manufacturers site without ever testing the monitor and specing the completed unit. Therefore quite often the specs you are reading on paper may not be true. Beyond that the panel makers measure their specs in "ideal" settings rather than real world settings. So when you see a spec like 2000: 1 contrast that was taken in a pitch black room at the dead center point of the screen rather than taking an average from across the screen. Just somethign to keep in mind about Specs in general. its not just viewing angle that has issues.
 
i have a NEC 20WMGX2, first time I saw it at 10, 10 , 10

when looking for it I saw it at 8,8,8

doesnt matter to me cause its still the best monitor out

:cool:
 
supastar1568 said:
i have a NEC 20WMGX2, first time I saw it at 10, 10 , 10

when looking for it I saw it at 8,8,8

doesnt matter to me cause its still the best monitor out

:cool:
Click to expand...


Cool, I see it at 8, 8, 8 on my CRT, im guessing thats normal then.
 
travbomb said:
I totally agree and understand your frustration but you have to realize that this is not just an issue with viewing angle. Most monitor manufacturers take their specs right off of the panel manufacturers site without ever testing the monitor and specing the completed unit. Therefore quite often the specs you are reading on paper may not be true. Beyond that the panel makers measure their specs in "ideal" settings rather than real world settings. So when you see a spec like 2000: 1 contrast that was taken in a pitch black room at the dead center point of the screen rather than taking an average from across the screen. Just somethign to keep in mind about Specs in general. its not just viewing angle that has issues.
Click to expand...

Yes I recognize this. Panel manufactures should be doing a more honest job of reporting specs. 10:1 contrast on viewing angles is bad enough, but I notice some have resorted to 5:1 if they report contrast at all. 5:1?? 10:1 is a hideously bad contrast ratio, but now they resort to 5:1. 100:1 numbers might actually have some merit. We need an independant testing body to come with sane measurment standards.
Here are samsungs specs for the panel in my Dell screen. Viewing angle +-90 degrees (180 degrees H/V) in every direction! Perfection you would have to stand behind it to not see it. This is farce. They don't state the contrast ratio, but it is probably 5:1 or less. What next 1:1 contrast and 360 degree viewing angles? Bah!
http://www.samsung.com/Products/TFTLCD/Monitors_n_Industrial/LTM201U1/LTM201U1.htm

I recognize this happens for other specifications than viewing angles but it is a big one for me. I am highly sensitive to visual abberations. And the poor viewing angles on PVA shows up like a phony 3d effect and glare like effects in certain situations. These panels actually give me a headache as well as just being plain annoying. TN in landscape mode and IPS don't cause me any problems. If I flip the TN into potrait for any amount of time. I get headaches again so it is the viewing angle that is causing a problem beyond mere annoyance.

This is certainly my Pet Peeve issue with LCD.
 
sceptre naga 20" (yes your eyes did not deceive you i said sceptre) i can see the change on 3,3,3
 
Here's what I like for photos with this monitor. Calibrate red, green and blue with the nVidia display wizard, Advanced DV mode off, set to standard mode, set to sRGB 6500K, set monitor brightness and contrast to 50% or so, then use the nVidia CP to set something kin to below.



The key here is to get the gamma correct or to your tastes for blacks. I find 4-8% optimal for photos. YMMV.

It is a gamer's panel and not truly intended for serious professional photo work. It does everything very well and nothing excellent.
 
I am a total noob on what half these numbers mean! 3, 3, 3 ?? 10, 10, 10.

any one know a link which can help me understanbd these numbers!? :eek:

I am considering in purchesing the NEC LCD20WGX2
 
Same issue here. Gamma adjustment would remedy it, but that's it. No amount of settings lets me see <RGB(10,10,10). The higher end of the spectrum seems clipped as well, even in native mode without all the dynamic features.
 
xtknight said:
Same issue here. Gamma adjustment would remedy it, but that's it. No amount of settings lets me see <RGB(10,10,10). The higher end of the spectrum seems clipped as well, even in native mode without all the dynamic features.
Click to expand...

Yuk , another potential LCD down the tubes... poor black detail is unacceptable.
 
mathesar said:
Yuk , another potential LCD down the tubes... poor black detail is unacceptable.
Click to expand...

Early S-IPS panels are notorious for poor black depth resulting from poor contrast ratios. For instance, the panel in the 20WGX2 is only specified to have a 400:1 contrast ratio. Newer S-IPS panels do considerably better with blacks. Look to the NEC LCD2070NX for good black depth from a 700:1 S-IPS panel. The current leader in high contrast S-IPS, however, is the LP2065.
 
Now that I have my NEC 20WMGX2 at my optimal settings, i tried this again.

I see the box easily (its a nice faint black but easily seen) at 4,4,4. At each step it gets more and more brighter. The lower definatley does not mean the better.

My work monitor (low end Acer 19"), I can see it as grey, easily at 3,3,3. After 3,3,3 the shades do not really change too much and it remains a faint grey color. This is much much worse than my NEC at home.
 
Overwind said:
Early S-IPS panels are notorious for poor black depth resulting from poor contrast ratios. For instance, the panel in the 20WGX2 is only specified to have a 400:1 contrast ratio. Newer S-IPS panels do considerably better with blacks. Look to the NEC LCD2070NX for good black depth from a 700:1 S-IPS panel. The current leader in high contrast S-IPS, however, is the LP2065.
Click to expand...

This statement is for the most part false.

The panel in the 20WMGX2 is listed at 800:1 and is the first (whihc is not very old) S-IPS 20 inch wide panel.

http://www.lgphilips-lcd.com/homeContain/jsp/eng/prd/prd201_j_e.jsp

The panel in the 20WMGX2 is newer than the panel in the LCD2070NX.

THe LP2065 uses the same panel as the NEC LCD2090UXi but doesnt have half the features driving it. So i would not call it the leader in S-IPS.
 
^^^
travbomb said:
This statement is for the most part false.
Click to expand...
Indeed. I wonder, where on earth are people picking up such information. It's completely misleading, not based on any solid facts and most importantly it's confusing other thread readers. Shocking. :confused: Sorry for being brutal here, but people should really research more before posting the stuff like this.
 
You know, looking at that GIF, the background is 2,2,2 and half of the colors aren't actually solid shades but a dithered mess. Someone should put together a proper animated gif/png.

Anyways with that gif, of the monitors i have here the Dell 2405 and Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 2070 display a difference at 3,3,3 where the Dell 3007 doesn't show any change until 5,5,5.

The 2405/2070 also show that the gif isn't 0,0,0 where the 3007 can't make that distinction. All the monitors are at default brightness and the Mitsu shows no difference between my normal settings and SRGB mode.
 
squeezee said:
You know, looking at that GIF, the background is 2,2,2 and half of the colors aren't actually solid shades but a dithered mess. Someone should put together a proper animated gif/png
Click to expand...

Not animated, to get the most accurate results save the picture as a file and open it up with windows image viewer and click on slide show (F11). I can see the 4 on mine and can only see the 8,8,8 on the websites (with CRT).

untitled2fi4.png

http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/6865/untitled2fi4.png

Edit: fixed
 
si0dine said:
Not animated, to get the most accurate results save the picture as a file and open it up with windows image viewer and click on slide show (F11). I can see the 4 on mine and can only see the 8,8,8 on the websites (with CRT).

untitled2fi4.png

http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/6865/untitled2fi4.png

Edit: fixed
Click to expand...

When viewing the .png on the forum itself I can very faintly make out the #4 box, but when viewing the pic by itself fullscreen on a black backround I can see #1.
 
mathesar said:
When viewing the .png on the forum itself I can very faintly make out the #4 box, but when viewing the pic by itself fullscreen on a black backround I can see #1.
Click to expand...

Don't look for the box look for the number
 
si0dine said:
Don't look for the box look for the number
Click to expand...

In that case I can read #6 on the forum itself and #2 when viewing by itself fullscreen. (dark room).
 
Heh, i was seeing this with both the 1st jpg and now the new png you posted but the windows Picture & Fax viewer will NOT display 1 through 3. If you view it in IE or Photoshop its fine though.

With this image, the Dell 2407 clearly shows all the gray patches, which is mainly due to its rather bright greys which makes them all look very similar in actual shade. The Mitsubishi 2070 displays all the patches from 1-10 as well but with much better rendering in that they fade into near-black as they should.

The Dell 3007 is a different story however, On the forum page (where the others were tested) it only can make out up to 8. If i put it on a pure black screen i can make out up to 6 everything else is indistinct and blends into the blackness. Which pretty much is the same as i observe in normal usage in that it crushes blacks.
 
With my "old" ViewSonic VP912b I can see 4,4,4

I am amazed that the S-IPS monitors are performing so poorly. My LCD is a 6-bit TN monitor with only 450:1 contrast!
 
darklight_tr said:
With my "old" ViewSonic VP912b I can see 4,4,4

I am amazed that the S-IPS monitors are performing so poorly. My LCD is a 6-bit TN monitor with only 450:1 contrast!
Click to expand...
As I already mentioned in the first page of this thread, this type of test is simply not reliable indication of the panel capabilities. People can post their numbers (and I've seen strangely low ones) - that's OK, but there is one fundamental problem: we don't have any information about their monitor settings, brightness, contrast, colour temperature, gamma, calibration status, monitor video mode (if there is some picture processing going on) and so on and so on. For the tests like this, all participating monitors have to share the same and well defined state. If not, I don't see the particular purpose of this test. It's not only important that people "see" the shades, but how are they seeing them and if the each colour step is nicely pronounced, with the acceptable contrast against each other.

More importantly, deepest shade reproduction is challenging task for any monitor (CRT or LCD) and for non-colour-critical and general usage (and that covers 99% users of this forum) you will be just fine and no particular need for panic. 20WGX2 is not colour critical monitor, especially at this price range, and simply it's not build for the professional photo editing. It's great multitasking screen and it is probably unfair to expect the impossible when we are talking about the colours - although I received few reports from the people who work with colours that they were satisfied with the performance. Also, thread like this should not put you off the S-IPS - such panels are very well established for the good colour reproduction.

Back to the subject. With the test picture (from above) I can see the first shade @ 6 and that is pretty much in-line with the black point test from the first page. This is 20WGX2 native video mode, 50/50 contrast/brightness, native colour temperature, non calibrated. What I would like to see are the values from the calibrated 20WGX2 - if anyone can contribute ... it would be interesting, as stock colours usually require a bit of work. I don't have my colour vision spyder with me, so I can't finish the test.
 
Sadly LCD's (unless you buy one made just for strong photo reproduction) really arent the best choice for photo work. They are getting alot better thats for sure ..but not many of them can produce true blacks and maintain strong color balance without some kind of downside (overbearing backlights come into mind) Samsung has a nice 19 inch LCD http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16824001208 that one has very good blacks and strong color reproduction.
 
I saw that samsung posted above at a show about a month ago. Really neat stand cause it can be adjusted any direction but it was not very stable and was very hard to adjust the monitor to a position that did not feel crooked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top