New IPS panels without white glow?

[John2000]

Hi,

I'm about to buy a new 24" 1920x1200 monitor. I'm leaning towards a montitor with an IPS panel, due to the better colour reproduction and viewing angles compared to TN panels. However, the IPS "white glow" effect really puts me off. I haven't seen it in real life, only on some YouTube videos, but it's enough to make me have second thoughts about getting an IPS panel.

So, therefore I just wonder if anyone knows what's on the horizon when it comes to future IPS panels? Have anyone heard anything about future IPS panels where the white glow effect has been reduced or eliminated using some new technology?

I don't want to buy an IPS monitor now, only to find out that there are new ones comming in a few months that will not have the IPS white glow effect.

 

[PatK]

Apparently LG stopped making panels featuring an A-TW polarizer, which means that (unless there's some unknown development) future IPS panels will suffer white glow. Don't get white glow out of proportion though.. Yep, it can make black level look bad at quite a sharp angle, but it's not a huge issue for desktop / computer usage and it's still way (WAYYYYYY... ) better than the alternatives..

It's doubtful companies will spend a lot of money on LCD technology now to fix these problems with things like OLED on the horizon. Not only does it come with better contrast, it has better viewing angles without "white glow", and it also has much better refresh rates too, which means it's even better for things like gaming or fast video. How "on the horizon" it is depends on many things. My advice would be to buy a nice IPS panel now that'll last you the next 5+ years, by which time hopefully affordable desktop sized OLED panels will be closer to being within reach of ordinary mortals.

 

[John2000]

Thanks for your input. What you're recommending is probably what I'll go for (i.e. buy an IPS monitor now, then uprade to an OLED when available in a few years).

Still, the IPS panel technology has not been standing still the last few years. There have been several different versions of IPS developed; S-IPS, AS-IPS, H-IPS, E-IPS, P-IPS and so on. So is it really that unlikely that a new version of the IPS technology will be developed that solves the white glow issue?

 

[tk-don]

Hm well, the LG W2420R comes with a A-TW polarizer and so does the HP 2480zx, but it's a high price to pay.
Not sure what i'd advice you to do. Having briefly used a Dell U2410 at work (not mine though) i think that white glow is a problem if you view the monitor up too close or at a not unreasonably large angle. If you use a laptop next to it like i did, it would be noticeable but never a problem in daylight conditions. It's much better than the TN panels i usually work by, but in the end i bought a used NEC LCD2490WUXi for home use, which again turned out much better.

Is there actually any official word on why it isn't used in anything but LG's probably most expensive and technically advanced panels? Weren't/aren't some representatives from NEC also browsing and posting at these boards? Maybe they can shed some light on this and why it's suddenly so hard to come by (if this isn't beating a dead horse).

So to answer your last question: As long as LG has such a high market share regarding dekstop IPS LCD panels and they seem to only integrate the magic polarizer on the most expensive IPS panels they produce, it's not very likely at all. LED backlit IPS panels are on the horizon though (not too important though).

 

[brumwald]

IMO the white glow is really distracting even when looking at the monitor dead on at a normal distance. It's a very serious defect that makes *VA panels very tempting. Any game, image or movie that have dark scenes in it will suffer and you better be able to put it off your mind for your own sanitys sake (unfortunately all panel techs have issues that you will have to learn to live with (IPS + ATW might be the exception...)).

 

[TheArTcher]

I own a Panasonic 37" HDTV that has an IPS panel, no white glow, and true 178 deg viewing angles. So I know it's possible. I don't know why they don't use this technology to create monitors.

 

[daveswantek]

I own a Panasonic 37" HDTV that has an IPS panel, no white glow, and true 178 deg viewing angles. So I know it's possible. I don't know why they don't use this technology to create monitors.

The requirements are much different. Just look at the difference in possable seating arrangements alone. The contrast ratio has to be much higher as well. Whith that said: I agree with you, but I think profit margins are the ruling factor in computer displays.

Dave

 

[John2000]

@tk-don: Thanks for your monitor recommendations. I had a look at the monitors you recommended but e.g. the HP 2480zx cost ~$2000, so it's unfortunately totally out of my budget! Even the LCD2490WUXi cost like ~$700-800. My budget limit is around $500. I was considering the HP zr24w, which is around $400, but unfortunately it has no A-TW polarizer so it will suffer from white glow.

@brumwald: Yes, that's what worries me. I will mainly be using the monitor at 1.5-2 feet distance looking straight at it, and sometimes watching movies from ~20-30 feet. The lighting will usually be dim, perhaps a single 25-40W bulb in the room. But even under such conditions white glow seems to be quite visible, and if it looks anything like this it would drive me crazy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eA2IjlotJU.

@daveswantek: "I agree with you, but I think profit margins are the ruling factor in computer displays". But they charge $400-500 for a basic 24" 1920x1200 IPS panel, and not much more for a basic 40" HDTV. So if they can make large IPS HDTVs without white glow for that price, it ought to be possible to make IPS monitors without white glow as well without it costing a fortune, or?

 

[daveswantek]

@daveswantek: "I agree with you, but I think profit margins are the ruling factor in computer displays". But they charge $400-500 for a basic 24" 1920x1200 IPS panel, and not much more for a basic 40" HDTV. So if they can make large IPS HDTVs without white glow for that price, it ought to be possible to make IPS monitors without white glow as well without it costing a fortune, or?

My guess is that computer displays have a much higher dot pitch which drives up manufacturing costs. Kinda like IPS vs TN.

You may want to look into one or more of the newer cPVA or MVA displays, they do not have white glow, but they may have more input lag and gamma shift. There are not very many of them arround unfortunetly.

Dave

 

[limitedaccess]

@daveswantek: "I agree with you, but I think profit margins are the ruling factor in computer displays". But they charge $400-500 for a basic 24" 1920x1200 IPS panel, and not much more for a basic 40" HDTV. So if they can make large IPS HDTVs without white glow for that price, it ought to be possible to make IPS monitors without white glow as well without it costing a fortune, or?

Are you sure IPS TVs do not exhibit the glow effect? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTSTPL1kUm0

Keep in mind "viewing angle" issues are magnified for computer monitors because you typically sit closer, this means your angles are much larger.

I also wonder if the smaller pixel sizes are a contributing factor to the glow problem from a technical perspective, anyone know?

 

[tk-don]

Are you sure IPS TVs do not exhibit the glow effect? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTSTPL1kUm0

Keep in mind "viewing angle" issues are magnified for computer monitors because you typically sit closer, this means your angles are much larger.

I also wonder if the smaller pixel sizes are a contributing factor to the glow problem from a technical perspective, anyone know?

If this is true, it would be a great problem with the ipad or iphone 4 for example - but it doesn't seem to be any worse/better (but this is hearsay).
The principle of LCD panels works by polarizing light correctly by using a polarizer. The image can be modified further by using different kind of filters. A polarizer is "continous" and doesn't depend on the resolution, otherwise it would be very annoying to use circular polarizing glasses during 3D movies in cinemas.

So i'm tempted to say that pixel density doesn't matter. The LG in the video might also look better than it is because the camera is not very light sensitive.

For TV's i'd thend to agree with TheArTcher - I have no experience with the 37", but a relative has a TX26LXD70 with a 26" IPS Alpha panel, and horizontally and vertically there's no hint of white glow when sitting closely up front.
The Panasonics used to be available in two configurations - one with an IPS Alpha panel with a bit narrower vertical viewing angles (it becomes a bit more white at steeper angles), and one with excellent vertical and horizontal viewing angles, so obviously they know something about how to improve viewing angles.

@John2000: It must be 1920x1200, right? The NEC2090UXi also has the A-TW polarizer i think, but it's 4:3 and 1600x1200, but it's cheaper.
Otherwise i'd tend to agree with what was otherwise suggested - just go for a decent IPS monitor and upgrade to something better, when it comes along in some years.

 

[sblantipodi]

PVA should be a good alternatives imho.
From what it worth on some segment I prefer PVA over IPS.

 

[limitedaccess]

If this is true, it would be a great problem with the ipad or iphone 4 for example - but it doesn't seem to be any worse/better (but this is hearsay).
The principle of LCD panels works by polarizing light correctly by using a polarizer. The image can be modified further by using different kind of filters. A polarizer is "continous" and doesn't depend on the resolution, otherwise it would be very annoying to use circular polarizing glasses during 3D movies in cinemas.

So i'm tempted to say that pixel density doesn't matter. The LG in the video might also look better than it is because the camera is not very light sensitive.

Would the different AG coatings affect this issue then in some way? Does say the glossy Apple IPS have less "glow?" This is another area I can think of that differentiates TVs and Monitors, as TVs tend to have less aggressive AG or are glossy.

 

[John2000]

Thanks for all the help. Right now I'm considering getting a Samsung 2443BW 24" 1920x1200 TN monitor for ~$250, and stick with it until an OLED or IPS monitor without white glow is available.

Do you think I'm making a mistake? Will e.g. a HP zr24w IPS monitor really have that much better image quality compared to the Samsung 2443BW? Is the zr24w in your opinion so much better that it's worth being annoyed by the IPS white glow from it?

 

[brumwald]

I do, but it's all subjective...
White glow sure is distracting but it's at the same time the only real (relatively) drawback of IPS (in my opinion). With TN you have to sacrifice everything else just not to get white glow.

The more expensive something is the harder it is to justify its defects, but the HP ZR24W is relatively cheap so (IMO) it's a good tradeoff.

Best way is to try it out in the real world but thats easier said than done...

 

[PatK]

Do you think I'm making a mistake? Will e.g. a HP zr24w IPS monitor really have that much better image quality compared to the Samsung 2443BW? Is the zr24w in your opinion so much better that it's worth being annoyed by the IPS white glow from it?

It's not really so much the image quality with the different panel types. Colour on IPS panels is better, not least because it's a true 8 bit device, which means reds, greens, and blues have 256 values each. TN is 6 bit, and must "emulate" the look of an 8 bit panel. You will see the difference in demanding images, and where fine detail in very dark or very light images must be reproduced. Here TN panels struggle. However overall a good TN panel can do a semi-decent job against IPS in terms of image quality, and you tend to have to look for the differences.

But that's not the only difference. The huge difference is in the viewing angles and the different visual annoyances which occur when you move your viewing angle. On TN panels the viewing angles are so bad that you barely even have to move your head to notice colours changing. Large TN panels are not even capable of generating the same gamma at the top and bottom of the screen.

On a properly calibrated IPS screen (with 2.2 gamma) the following image will appear almost completely grey, and the word Lagom will barely be visible. On a screen with a different gamma the word Lagom will be easily visible. However, on a large TN panel the text at the top will be a different colour from the bottom! (link here
. http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/viewing_angle.php )

Worse, when you move your head, these colour shifts also move around. Some people (myself included) are very sensitive to this colour shift, and find it very annoying. Most people don't care. If someone actually cares about IPS glow I'd find it extremely hard to believe that they wouldn't be more bothered by colour shift, since TN panel colour shift is kinda like what IPS glow would be on radioactive steroids!

Watch at 52 seconds on this video and you'll see the shift on a TN panel..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K16vuIZnXSo

The ironic thing is the above Youtube image uses green, which actually tends to have better stability than most colours on a TN panel, so what you're mostly seeing is colour shifts in the dark and light contrast areas. If you find this more acceptable than white glow then go ahead and save the money and buy a TN panel!

Unless you use a black background you're not even going to notice IPS glow in many scenarios, and even when you do it's not THAT difficult to minimize the issue. To me (and I think most people) the colour shift on VA panels is also much more visually annoying. As for TN, it's almost criminal that it was allowed to take over from CRT screens!

 

[thezfunk]

PVA should be a good alternatives imho.
From what it worth on some segment I prefer PVA over IPS.

I have a PVA panel and the color and black are excellent but I notice the input lag when it comes to my TF2 play. I just ordered a IPS panel and will try it and see if the white glow is worth the better input lag times.

 

[Biges]

Eh, these good old days when 2490 was a sure shot (2690 for Europeans, no 2490 here :-/ ), not it is again the same story about compromising.

 

[John2000]

I just ordered the HP ZR24W. The worst that can happen is that I find the white glow too annoying, and then I'll return it and pay $30-40 in total shipment costs. Hopefully I'll just be very happy with the new monitor though!

I still find it a bit funny that the white glow issue is not solved on newer IPS monitors, especially since there existed a solution for it years ago (i.e. the A-TW polarizer)...

 

[Walker]

PatK is spot on IMO. IPS glow does suck but it's still far less of an issue than the gamma shift of *VA and the terrible vertical viewing angles/color shift of TN panels. The chances of a new, non-professional IPS with A-TW polarizer coming out any time soon are very slim unfortunately.

 

[Biges]

I just ordered the HP ZR24W. The worst that can happen is that I find the white glow too annoying, and then I'll return it and pay $30-40 in total shipment costs. Hopefully I'll just be very happy with the new monitor though!

I still find it a bit funny that the white glow issue is not solved on newer IPS monitors, especially since there existed a solution for it years ago (i.e. the A-TW polarizer)...

A-TW polarizer was probably too expensive to manufacture and NEC's marketing had been unable sell it properly to customers. Well, they probably don't understand the difference between TN and IPS anyway.

 

[Elledan]

A-TW polarizer was probably too expensive to manufacture and NEC's marketing had been unable sell it properly to customers. Well, they probably don't understand the difference between TN and IPS anyway.

True enough, in my line of work (video game development & graphics design), colour reproduction is absolutely crucial, hence I'm sticking with my current semi-professional Iiyama CRTs (fully calibrated, of course). My laptop has a TN panel and it's horrific for any kind of colour reproduction. My housemate's TN displays aren't much better. To do any kind of graphics design on them would be an exercise in futility.

Yet he's quite happy with them, especially after I calibrated them for him (TN panels are a PITA to calibrate, BTW)

It's probably going to take something like OLED displays to entice me to switch from these trusty CRTs, as both *VA and IPS don't offer anything over them, except for less physical space taken up on my desk

 

[Sycraft]

It's probably going to take something like OLED displays to entice me to switch from these trusty CRTs, as both *VA and IPS don't offer anything over them, except for less physical space taken up on my desk

No, they do offer some advantages. If they are advantages that matter to you is another matter, however they are there:

1) Perfect geometry. All LCDs maintain a perfect shape at all time, with no calibration. Even the very best CRTs are hard to perfectly square off, and you have to adjust it from time to time.

2) Perfect focus. In particular as they age and used in higher resolutions, CRTs have focus and convergence troubles. While this can be adjusted on high end models a bit, it usually becomes uneven with respect to the edged and there's nothing that can be done to keep the whole thing perfectly in focus. LCDs always have razor sharp focus, owing to their design.

3) Better bright levels. CRTs, especially pro ones, only like to be fairly dim. If you increase their brightness you get bleed. That means you usually need a pretty dark room for them to look their best. LCDs have no difficulty getting quite bright, allowing them to work well in a normally lit room, or even sometimes in a brightly lit room.

4) Wider colour gamut. You may not want this so it might not apply, but it is an option. You can get LCDs with a gamut that can cover the whole aRGB and thus basically the whole space of CMYK printing. While there were a couple CRTs that were wide gamut, they were exceedingly expensive and rare.

5) Larger sizes. CRTs capped out at 22" (20" usable) for 4:3 displays and 24" (about 22" usable) for 16:10. These days LCDs start there, you can get 22" up to 30" LCDs no problem.

6) Steady state image. CRTs do flicker, which can be a problem. In general it isn't a big deal to run them at a refresh rate so that you don't notice, but it still is part of what they do. Means you can't video tape them without a genlock feed or the like. LCDs are steady, so no problems.

I'm not saying you need to replace your CRTs if you don't want to, use what makes you the happiest. I just think some CRT fans get a bit over focused on the problems LCDs have, and ignore any problems CRTs have. I've used CRTs, including high end ones (my last was a LaCie Electron22Blue IV) and they have plenty of problems as well. Over all, I like IPS LCDs better.

You have to objectively look at the whole display, and all the things that are good and bad about it, and then decide what works best. You do yourself a disservice if you ignore flaws in one technology and over focus on flaws in another.

 

[Biges]

It's probably going to take something like OLED displays to entice me to switch from these trusty CRTs, as both *VA and IPS don't offer anything over them, except for less physical space taken up on my desk

My bet is that you are going to wait quite some time. Marketing departments have some new buzz terms to play with (3D, "LED displays"), so OLED displays are not currently a priority. Btw, I used to be really into OLEDs until I used some mobile phones with AMOLED screens (Samsung), after that I'm not that much sure they are so cool. They are paired with additional backlight, so their black is not entirely black :-/

 

[okashira]

Oh boy. I think some of yoy guys should really do some serious reading and research and get a better fundamental understanding on how LCD displays work..

First of all, don't ever judge any display based on a youtube video. Or what some dude "said." Seriously.

White Glow....
LCD displays are backlit. The backlight stays on all of the time***, and brightness/darkness/color in scenes is controlled by the LCD itself which acts like a filter for this backlight. To produce black, for example, each of the R, G & B LC elements are manipulated such that all of them block as much light as possible. They cannot block 100% of the light, as there are gaps between pixels, limitations on the LC structure, etc.; hence the "white glow," described when viewing a black screen. This is a good thing. If it's any color other then white in this situation then there is a calibration problem. In no circumstance can it be purely black as this would mean the backlight is just turned off*** or the LC elements are 100% efficient at blocking light, which is an impossibility.

You should be judging and comparing panels based on objective and definable specifications, such as Contrast Ratio (CR), View Angle (which in itself is spec'd as CR as a function of viewing angle), Response Time, Input Lag, Color Accuracy, etc.

All LCD's will emit some light on a fully black scene.**** S-PVA is the most effective technology at blocking as much light as possible for black, followed by TN, then all of the IPS deriviatves. This is expressed in the fact that typically S-PVA > TN > x-IPS in terms of CR.

Compare the displays you are considering based on the CR, response, etc., rather then subjective reports like "white glow" and "ghosting"

Simply saying IPS = white glow" is akin to audiophiles and their silly terms such as soundstage, depth, feel, emotions, etc etc (I am missing alot here... )

If all else fails, you should check the display out for yourself, perhaps making some kind of effort to ensure the calibration is "OK," in regards to contrast (i.e., [R,G,B] = [0,0,0]) calls for the display to set each RGB element to block as much light as it can..... although there isn't much excuse for a new LCD design to not be calibrated properly from the factory in regards to CR.... given the appropriate inputs.


***not counting dynamic contrast implementations... which produce misleading specifications at best from lesser reviewers.

 

[brumwald]

Oh boy. I think some of yoy guys should really do some serious reading and research and get a better fundamental understanding on how LCD displays work..

First of all, don't ever judge any display based on a youtube video. Or what some dude "said." Seriously.

White Glow....
LCD displays are backlit. The backlight stays on all of the time***, and brightness/darkness/color in scenes is controlled by the LCD itself which acts like a filter for this backlight. To produce black, for example, each of the R, G & B LC elements are manipulated such that all of them block as much light as possible. They cannot block 100% of the light, as there are gaps between pixels, limitations on the LC structure, etc.; hence the "white glow," described when viewing a black screen. This is a good thing. If it's any color other then white in this situation then there is a calibration problem. In no circumstance can it be purely black as this would mean the backlight is just turned off*** or the LC elements are 100% efficient at blocking light, which is an impossibility.

You should be judging and comparing panels based on objective and definable specifications, such as Contrast Ratio (CR), View Angle (which in itself is spec'd as CR as a function of viewing angle), Response Time, Input Lag, Color Accuracy, etc.

All LCD's will emit some light on a fully black scene.**** S-PVA is the most effective technology at blocking as much light as possible for black, followed by TN, then all of the IPS deriviatves. This is expressed in the fact that typically S-PVA > TN > x-IPS in terms of CR.

Compare the displays you are considering based on the CR, response, etc., rather then subjective reports like "white glow" and "ghosting"

Simply saying IPS = white glow" is akin to audiophiles and their silly terms such as soundstage, depth, feel, emotions, etc etc (I am missing alot here... )

If all else fails, you should check the display out for yourself, perhaps making some kind of effort to ensure the calibration is "OK," in regards to contrast (i.e., [R,G,B] = [0,0,0]) calls for the display to set each RGB element to block as much light as it can..... although there isn't much excuse for a new LCD design to not be calibrated properly from the factory in regards to CR.... given the appropriate inputs.


***not counting dynamic contrast implementations... which produce misleading specifications at best from lesser reviewers.

Well, you got the basics right...

What you are describing is simply the black depth. White glow adds to the black depth depending on the viewing angle, kind of like backlight bleed, but again, dependent on the viewing angle (and not (for instance) backlight/LCD variations and or backligt+panel mounting). This is an axiom for anyone having any experience regarding IPS monitors. To compare that with audiophile gimmickry is ludicrous.

You should be judging and comparing panels based on objective and definable specifications, such as Contrast Ratio (CR), View Angle (which in itself is spec'd as CR as a function of viewing angle), Response Time, Input Lag, Color Accuracy, etc.

I have no idea what you mean by objective and definable specifications in that context.
Contrast ratio and response time specifications are notorious of being everything but objective and are utterly useless unless you have multiple multiple panels that was measured with the same equipment in the same environment (and thats quite rare to get by). And viewing angles must be the most worthless LCD specification known to man.

Yes, seeing the monitor for yourself is the only decent way to do it. Two problems with that. First is that it is very hard to get by stores/whatever that have IPS monitors on display. Second, if you manage to find one in a store that environment is worthless for making any observations regarding black depth, white glow and backlight bleed - which are some of the main characteristics that distinguish bad from worthless LCDs (good luck getting an objective figure that explains backlight bleed or takes into account the variations in different panels).

Reading up on LCD tech on wikipedia/howstuffworks.com is unfortunately not enough to claim yourself to be an expert and try to correct anyone describing something you haven't understood.

 

[Elledan]

No, they do offer some advantages. If they are advantages that matter to you is another matter, however they are there:

1) Perfect geometry. All LCDs maintain a perfect shape at all time, with no calibration. Even the very best CRTs are hard to perfectly square off, and you have to adjust it from time to time.

My CRTs have no issues with geometry. In as far as there are any deviations they're not significant enough to be noticed.

2) Perfect focus. In particular as they age and used in higher resolutions, CRTs have focus and convergence troubles. While this can be adjusted on high end models a bit, it usually becomes uneven with respect to the edged and there's nothing that can be done to keep the whole thing perfectly in focus. LCDs always have razor sharp focus, owing to their design.

One of my CRTs has slight focus issues, yes. It's not something which interferes with my work, though.

3) Better bright levels. CRTs, especially pro ones, only like to be fairly dim. If you increase their brightness you get bleed. That means you usually need a pretty dark room for them to look their best. LCDs have no difficulty getting quite bright, allowing them to work well in a normally lit room, or even sometimes in a brightly lit room.

This whole argument applies mostly to shadowmask monitors. It's still worth having near-perfect blacks, though And it's far easier to control the light levels in an office than to change monitors.

4) Wider colour gamut. You may not want this so it might not apply, but it is an option. You can get LCDs with a gamut that can cover the whole aRGB and thus basically the whole space of CMYK printing. While there were a couple CRTs that were wide gamut, they were exceedingly expensive and rare.

The use of wide gamut is still up for debate. None of the pro LCDs I looked at over the past few years supported it (all IPS LCDs, IIRC).

5) Larger sizes. CRTs capped out at 22" (20" usable) for 4:3 displays and 24" (about 22" usable) for 16:10. These days LCDs start there, you can get 22" up to 30" LCDs no problem.

Well yes, but I don't give much about physical size. I need more vertical pixels in particular. Widescreen is already overrated and largely useless for 3D modelling/CAD/Photoshop work. When 26" LCDs have less vertical resolution (1080 vs 1200) than my 20" CRTs, they're only good for wasting more space on the desk.

6) Steady state image. CRTs do flicker, which can be a problem. In general it isn't a big deal to run them at a refresh rate so that you don't notice, but it still is part of what they do. Means you can't video tape them without a genlock feed or the like. LCDs are steady, so no problems.

I'm not taping from my displays I'd record directly from the videocard, if I had to do so.

I run my CRTs at 85 Hz and encounter no flickering issues, not even using my peripheral vision. I have noticed that I'm exceedingly sensitive to flickering lights to the point where some CCFL backlights of LCDs annoy me almost as much as a modern CRT running at 60 Hz (nausea & headache).

I'm not saying you need to replace your CRTs if you don't want to, use what makes you the happiest. I just think some CRT fans get a bit over focused on the problems LCDs have, and ignore any problems CRTs have. I've used CRTs, including high end ones (my last was a LaCie Electron22Blue IV) and they have plenty of problems as well. Over all, I like IPS LCDs better.

You have to objectively look at the whole display, and all the things that are good and bad about it, and then decide what works best. You do yourself a disservice if you ignore flaws in one technology and over focus on flaws in another.

Oh believe me, I try to be as objective as possible. The main things I can't get over is that I would not gain on the vertical resolution, lose the nice blacks, go back to 60 Hz (nasty when doing video editing), probably have to lose space due to widescreen I don't need, still use the same amount of power (my CRTs and the pro LCDs I looked at are both ~90 Watt) and that all for the low, low price of 2,000 Euro or more.

My bet is that you are going to wait quite some time. Marketing departments have some new buzz terms to play with (3D, "LED displays"), so OLED displays are not currently a priority. Btw, I used to be really into OLEDs until I used some mobile phones with AMOLED screens (Samsung), after that I'm not that much sure they are so cool. They are paired with additional backlight, so their black is not entirely black :-/

I have actually played with the Galaxy S of my housemate and its Super-AMOLED screen is just awesome. Perfect viewing angles, really great blacks, doesn't care about direct sunlight and well, I can't find any disadvantages to it. I'd get a PC screen like that without giving it a second thought.

 

[okashira]

Well, you got the basics right...

What you are describing is simply the black depth. White glow adds to the black depth depending on the viewing angle, kind of like backlight bleed, but again, dependent on the viewing angle (and not (for instance) backlight/LCD variations and or backligt+panel mounting). This is an axiom for anyone having any experience regarding IPS monitors. To compare that with audiophile gimmickry is ludicrous.



I have no idea what you mean by objective and definable specifications in that context.
Contrast ratio and response time specifications are notorious of being everything but objective and are utterly useless unless you have multiple multiple panels that was measured with the same equipment in the same environment (and thats quite rare to get by). And viewing angles must be the most worthless LCD specification known to man.

Yes, seeing the monitor for yourself is the only decent way to do it. Two problems with that. First is that it is very hard to get by stores/whatever that have IPS monitors on display. Second, if you manage to find one in a store that environment is worthless for making any observations regarding black depth, white glow and backlight bleed - which are some of the main characteristics that distinguish bad from worthless LCDs (good luck getting an objective figure that explains backlight bleed or takes into account the variations in different panels).

Reading up on LCD tech on wikipedia/howstuffworks.com is unfortunately not enough to claim yourself to be an expert and try to correct anyone describing something you haven't understood.

I wish you were joking on your contrast ratio comment. It is quite easy to objectivly define and legitimate comparisons can be made, even across LCD technologies. Luminance level at full white divided by luminance level at full dark with the backlight at the same level. That's it. Just 'cause you have been fooled in the past by some manufacturer specification doesn't make it a legitimate measure of performance.
Your reference to the term "black depth," is exactly the kind of silly wording that should be avoided, akin to the audiophile descriptions I was referring to. Simply state the display's luminance level at maximum blackness. Or use a contrast measurement. You could easily also define a measure to show that a display can convey an accurate difference between say, full black, and "almost black" (e.g., RGB 0,0,0 and RGB 1,1,1 if we are talking about a full range RGB signal.)
Backlight Bleed? Another subjective garbage term. This is just a reference of a display's consistency (lack of it) of luminance output at full black across it's surface.
Viewing Angle. Again, because you have been misled by manufacturers in the past with some basic viewing angle spec on the box doesn't make it impossible to describe it objectively. Like I said before, viewing angle is best described by peak contrast ratio as a function of viewing angle, or, more simply: viewing angle at which a certain value of contrast ratio is achieved (in this case, better to define it in terms of what angle a certain % of that display's peak "head on" contrast ratio is realized.)

Just because you don't understand that a very concrete "thing" like an LCD's performance can be FULLY quantified by a set of OBJECTIVE specifications, don't go around telling others they don't understand how the tech works, while you use silly subjective buzz words like "black depth," "backlight bleed,"

 

[brumwald]

I wish you were joking on your contrast ratio comment. It is quite easy to objectivly define and legitimate comparisons can be made, even across LCD technologies. Luminance level at full white divided by luminance level at full dark with the backlight at the same level. That's it. Just 'cause you have been fooled in the past by some manufacturer specification doesn't make it a legitimate measure of performance.
Your reference to the term "black depth," is exactly the kind of silly wording that should be avoided, akin to the audiophile descriptions I was referring to. Simply state the display's luminance level at maximum blackness. Or use a contrast measurement. You could easily also define a measure to show that a display can convey an accurate difference between say, full black, and "almost black" (e.g., RGB 0,0,0 and RGB 1,1,1 if we are talking about a full range RGB signal.)
Backlight Bleed? Another subjective garbage term. This is just a reference of a display's consistency (lack of it) of luminance output at full black across it's surface.

Yes. It's easy to objectively define and compare the contrast ratio. I never contradicted that. The problem is that you have to get reliable data and that can be a problem.

When it comes to specifications theory is often useless. In practice it's hard to get by reliable data and data from different sources can seldom be compared directly.

Your reference to the term "black depth," is exactly the kind of silly wording that should be avoided, akin to the audiophile descriptions I was referring to. Simply state the display's luminance level at maximum blackness

And thats exactly what I mean with black depth. Since we have a problem of getting reliable data saying that a monitor has poor black depth is the same as saying that the display's luminance level at maximum blackness is quite high. Do you feel better now? You shouldn't. And if you compare that to audiophiles it's apparent that you haven't got much experience in that area.

When I say that a monitor has better black depth than another then that is something that is quantitative and objectively measurable. If you don't like how I express myself then well... I don't see that as a big problem.

Backlight Bleed? Another subjective garbage term. This is just a reference of a display's consistency (lack of it) of luminance output at full black across it's surface.

Yes. Backlight bleed is just a reference of a display's lack of consistency of luminance output at full black across it's surface. How is that subjective? Good/bad backlight bleed is subjective, yes. Problem is that backlight bleed vary a lot between different samples of the same LCD model. So even if you have an objective figure(s) that tells you exactly and objectively how it is that still doesn't tell you anything since the monitor you buy will have completely different characteristics from the one that the measurments were taken from. If you go out and test every single monitor that have ever existed and ever will exist and create a database of all that data, then great! If not, then too bad but your whole point is lost. At least for the purpose of buying a monitor (which is of high interest in this forum).

Viewing Angle. Again, because you have been misled by manufacturers in the past with some basic viewing angle spec on the box doesn't make it impossible to describe it objectively. Like I said before, viewing angle is best described by peak contrast ratio as a function of viewing angle, or, more simply: viewing angle at which a certain value of contrast ratio is achieved (in this case, better to define it in terms of what angle a certain % of that display's peak "head on" contrast ratio is realized.)

I haven't been mislead by manufacturers. I discard everything the manufacturer try to tell me about the specifications just because they say nothing. I never said that objective data can't be measured.

I have no idea what your problem is and you completely avoided mentioning anything about white glow...

Also a monitors characteristics are often subjective by nature. What is considered a good viewing angle is up to debate (say hello to white glow...), and by that I don't mean that any number above x is considered good, but rather what you measure. The best objective figures in the world are useless if they are not measuring the right thing, and what to measure is subjective.

 

[zeroARMY]

Wow people are still debating CRT vs LCD in 2010? Haha. I was a hardcore CRT guy... until 6 years ago

 

[ToastyX]

Simply saying IPS = white glow" is akin to audiophiles and their silly terms such as soundstage, depth, feel, emotions, etc etc (I am missing alot here... )

You're right. You're missing a lot (everything). You have no idea what anyone in this thread is talking about and are posting nonsense.

LCD displays are backlit. The backlight stays on all of the time***, and brightness/darkness/color in scenes is controlled by the LCD itself which acts like a filter for this backlight. To produce black, for example, each of the R, G & B LC elements are manipulated such that all of them block as much light as possible. They cannot block 100% of the light, as there are gaps between pixels, limitations on the LC structure, etc.; hence the "white glow," described when viewing a black screen. This is a good thing. If it's any color other then white in this situation then there is a calibration problem.

That's not the white glow. Glowing is an easily observable viewing angle issue where light leaks through at an angle, which significantly impacts the contrast ratio, even at slight angles. It's not always white either. On older IPS panels (and on the Dell U2311H apparently), it's orange at slight angles and purple at extreme angles. Furthermore, a solution to this problem exists, the A-TW filter, but it's not being used on most IPS monitors.

You should be judging and comparing panels based on objective and definable specifications, such as Contrast Ratio (CR), View Angle (which in itself is spec'd as CR as a function of viewing angle), Response Time, Input Lag, Color Accuracy, etc.

That's great, except where do we get those specifications when nobody does tests with quantifiable data on viewing angle issues like glowing? Measurements flat against the screen don't take viewing angles into account. You also don't seem to understand what subjective means. Making a visual observation does not make it subjective.

Backlight Bleed? Another subjective garbage term. This is just a reference of a display's consistency (lack of it) of luminance output at full black across it's surface.

Why does it matter which term is used? They mean the same thing. Do you realize how ridiculous you sound?

"Happiness? Another garbage term. This is just a reference to one's level of pleasure or contentment."

 

[Bergkamp]

The glow is very visible at a "diagonal" angle, viewing u2410 (H-IPS) from the side or horizontal angle there is no glow.

 

[Elledan]

Wow people are still debating CRT vs LCD in 2010? Haha. I was a hardcore CRT guy... until 6 years ago

You want to say that in general LCDs aren't worse than CRTs?

I honestly doubt people will moan about CRT or LCD being better once OLED displays become available for PCs. I still wish SED would have gone into mass-production in 2006 as planned, instead of slowly bleeding to death. To think of what could have been

Just to be clear, if someone could point out to me what 2k+ Euro worth of professional LCDs would offer me over my current CRTs which would make it worth this price, I might consider jumping on the bandwagon. Until then I stick to my current position of waiting out this dark ages of LCDs.

 

[SH1]

You want to say that in general LCDs aren't worse than CRTs?

I honestly doubt people will moan about CRT or LCD being better once OLED displays become available for PCs. I still wish SED would have gone into mass-production in 2006 as planned, instead of slowly bleeding to death. To think of what could have been

Just to be clear, if someone could point out to me what 2k+ Euro worth of professional LCDs would offer me over my current CRTs which would make it worth this price, I might consider jumping on the bandwagon. Until then I stick to my current position of waiting out this dark ages of LCDs.

For raw image quality performance enthusiasts, I'm afraid last decade was a kind of a dark ages. Things we had been able to take for granted like truer blacks, and the deep, rich, color, this made possible, just disappeared from the computer monitor market.

If you still have high end CRTs in good working order, your skepticism with regard to LCD remains well justified. The worst part about it, is the lack of choice right now, even if one is willing to pay a premium. With CRTs no longer being made and SEDs never making it to market, we just have to hope that OLED finally gets here...

(I don't really like writing stuff like this, because I know it's not as if people have real options other than LCD presently. Thus, I'm not sure how helpful expressing such opinions are at this point. I was fortunate to get some new old stock CRTs a few years back, but I haven't seen much left lately. If going LCD, get a big one, screen size at least being a real, meaningful, area of improvement in recent years...)

 

[Elledan]

Yeah, I'd have to go with 30" pro LCDs to get a significant increase in resolution I'd still lose on all other areas, though. I think I'll stick with my lowly 20" CRTs for now

OLED seems to be rapidly progressing now, though. 30+" OLED TVs will be out early next year, so maybe OLED PC displays are not too far behind now. I'd settle for 21" 4:3 ones, even

 

[Biges]

I need a new monitor to my GF's place so I bought used Dell 2209WA. And what the hell, the white glow is pretty obvious on black background, not a nice view. The problem is, that I'm comparing the monitor to my NEC 2690 with A-TW filter, which is great. During normal usage the effect is far less apparent and maybe in 2209WA it is highlighted by quite intense anti-glare coating (used probably because the monitor is intended for office use).

But is there a choice? *VA matrices have quite similar effect only worse from my POV. And TN screens have vertical colour shift, also not very nice.

So at the end I bought used NEC 2090UXi with A-TW filter and the monitor is quite nice. I'll keep my eyes open for 2490-1, but I doubt I'll be able to get one in Europe :-/

 

[Whoisthisreally]

But is there a choice? *VA matrices have quite similar effect only worse from my POV. And TN screens have vertical colour shift, also not very nice.

VA tends to have a type of light leakage which is common to all LC modes. What happens is, when viewed from an angle, the crossed polarizers lose extinction ratio.

IPS has an additional light leakage cause which, as far as I've read, happens when light hitting the LC off-angle becomes elliptically polarized and thus fails to be blocked completely by the second polarizer.

 

[sethk]

OLED (and SED) will not be at IPS panels' current price point (at comparable sizes) in the next 3-4 years. That's the bottom line.

It's more likely that in the next few years we will see LCD panels (first in TVs and eventually monitors) that eke out a honest 10,000:1 - 50,000:1 CR, which will make the white glow much less objectionable at any normal viewing angle. I am very picky about displays and wish there were better monitors with fewer defects at lower price points but I understand the reality of technology commercialization.

 

[Elledan]

OLED (and SED) will not be at IPS panels' current price point (at comparable sizes) in the next 3-4 years. That's the bottom line.

It's more likely that in the next few years we will see LCD panels (first in TVs and eventually monitors) that eke out a honest 10,000:1 - 50,000:1 CR, which will make the white glow much less objectionable at any normal viewing angle. I am very picky about displays and wish there were better monitors with fewer defects at lower price points but I understand the reality of technology commercialization.

Pray tell which marvelous LCD technologies can do 10k+ CR without cheating while the average LCD panel seems to be <1k CR? The only 10k+ CRs I have seen were DCRs.

 

[Snowdog]

Pray tell which marvelous LCD technologies can do 10k+ CR without cheating while the average LCD panel seems to be <1k CR? The only 10k+ CRs I have seen were DCRs.

http://www.digitimes.com:8080/news/a20100608PR211.html

AUO AMVA5

In addition, the 55-inch full HD panel employing the latest AMVA5 technology with ultra-wide viewing angle is also on display. AUO has worked to increase cell transmittance to enhance power efficiency. The color washout problem commonly found within traditional MVA technology has also been resolved with AUO's proprietary development in pixel control and LCD driver, the company said. The intrinsic static contrast ratio has been raised to 16,000:1; light leakage is reduced, with enhanced image sharpness at dark state.

Should be showing up in TVs soon.