No more new 30inch computer screen?

Keldun

n00b
Joined
Apr 5, 2008
Messages
22
It seems to have been an eternity since the last release of a 30" screen and I was looking forward to buy a new 30" led screen from dell, nec, apple (whoever released one actually :p) unfortunately I just came accross this web site saying in a few of their news that we may not see new 30" panels and that manufacturers had chosen to focus on 27" instead.
The two biggest producers of the panels found in computer monitors, Samsung and LG, have both recently told us the same thing: there's not much of a future for 30'' displays.
Anyone read similar info or can confirm this?
 

Ravynmagi

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
1,464
What seems to be happening is LCD manufactures are trying to combine their TV and monitor productions to share more components. So monitors started shifting to a 16:9 ratio so they can share the same glass or whatever that TVs use.

Nobody seems to make 30 inch TVs. They seem to jump from 27 inches to 32 inches. And it appears they decided to put their 2660x1440 resolution on a 27 inch screen.

I'm hoping we'll eventually see 32 inch monitors with an even higher resolution in the future.
 

runnin17

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Messages
1,312
One reason for this is nvidia's pushing of the 2660x1440 resolution. I forget the exact name that they use for it, but it is something like E-HD (enhanced HD) or something.

Personally at this point I don't care about 27" monitors because there is not enough of them out there with a high resolution to even care about. I wouldn't mind a very high resolution 32" screen, but I don't think the resolution will go much higher than 2660x1440 and thus will still be 16:9 ratio which I am not a huge fan of. Oh, well.
 
Joined
Aug 9, 2009
Messages
14
There's also a bit of a difference jump between 27" and 30". The Dell 27" are just scaled up versions of their 24" screens, whereas the 30" screens require two DVI input plugs to take the information from.

In my personal opinion, I don't like this whole 16:9 aspect ratio happening. TVs and Desktop monitors should stay separated for their own purposes unless they plan to join the two that would enable them to work properly in their own right.
 

drtc

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 19, 2008
Messages
239
Do 27'ers with 2560x1440 need DL DVI or will a single link support the resolution?
 

laguerre

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 18, 2008
Messages
1,129
Before new 30" monitors come out, you'll have to show that the previous models no longer meet the needs of the consumer. Most 30" models still outclass all smaller models. Until this happens, there is not motivation for a new model. Prices reflect this.
 

brumwald

Gawd
Joined
Aug 1, 2006
Messages
598
Outclass in what sense?
Quality and performance degrade as size go up. If anything smaller panels outclass larger ones.

Large panels have a long way to go and there is endless room (and need) for improvement. The only reason for why it isn't being developed as much is just because of the small market. Which is also the same reason for why the 27" 16:9 panel gets so much attention. It's not only smaller but 16:9 which makes it even smaller when compared to 16:10 - thus a lot cheaper which opens it up to a larger market and more interest from the manufacturers.
Has not much to do with showing that the models doesn't meet the needs in this case (if that were the case we would see way more 30" displays coming out than 24" displays).
 

laguerre

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 18, 2008
Messages
1,129
What are the performance and quality issues with the majority of available 30" screens in comparison to the majority of 22-24" monitors?
 

brumwald

Gawd
Joined
Aug 1, 2006
Messages
598
The majority of 22-24" monitors? Are you talking about TN?
You can't compare such an expensive monitor as a 30" and compare it to a cheap TN where cost is the only real benchmark, it'd just be pointless. Rather compare the 30" to what an identical 22-24" monitor would perform (hard in reality).

The larger the screen the more apparent effects of poor view-angles get, eventhough most 30" are IPS they have a real problem with dark images at an angle.
Backlight bleed and uniformity is a serious issue.

Add to that that subjectively larger displays are less forgiving since the artifacts are easier to see (poor black levels is quite apparent when the area and light leaking through is much greater for instance).

Since smaller sizes get more attention the gap widens further, how many 24" were introduced in 2009? How many 30"? Not that that reflects quality but it says something about where the focus is at.
 

visualguy

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 7, 2007
Messages
257
Since smaller sizes get more attention the gap widens further, how many 24" were introduced in 2009? How many 30"? Not that that reflects quality but it says something about where the focus is at.

Not much new on the 30" front in recent times, but I would agree with metalsmart that there hasn't been any new technology or market requirement that would justify new models beyond the multiple good offerings which are already available.

2560x1600 at 120Hz for 3D would be a nice new feature which will justify some new models at some point, and it's becoming possible with DisplayPort 1.2...
 

steal

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 12, 2002
Messages
2,152
I'm fine with 2560x1440. 1600 pixels is a lot of height, and 30" 16:10 displays are just too big for me, I think. A 27-30", 2560x1440 display would be great.
 

Keldun

n00b
Joined
Apr 5, 2008
Messages
22
Not much new on the 30" front in recent times, but I would agree with metalsmart that there hasn't been any new technology or market requirement that would justify new models beyond the multiple good offerings which are already available.

2560x1600 at 120Hz for 3D would be a nice new feature which will justify some new models at some point, and it's becoming possible with DisplayPort 1.2...

What good offering are you talking about? There is still much room for improvement in the 30" monitors currently on the market.
Most reasonably priced 30" (not costing much more than 2k$) I have seen lack many things or are flawed.
Just replacing the backlight on current 30" with LED would already be a big step. Those things are like heaters during summer and consume a big amount of power.
A good LED Backlight could also help with better quality 30" display.
And just as brumwald said they could try to fix the panel geometry on most 30", and that would also justify new models.
Just look at a blackscreen on most 30" move around them a bit and you will see that. Try to push slightly on the panel and you will feel it also(very noticable on most of the "newest" 30" from dell)
They can also improve on feature or on responsiveness/input lag. The screens that have a nice scaler (that I find quite usefull for that screen size) always seem to come with huge input lag, surely they can do better now.
 

brumwald

Gawd
Joined
Aug 1, 2006
Messages
598
Not much new on the 30" front in recent times, but I would agree with metalsmart that there hasn't been any new technology or market requirement that would justify new models beyond the multiple good offerings which are already available.

2560x1600 at 120Hz for 3D would be a nice new feature which will justify some new models at some point, and it's becoming possible with DisplayPort 1.2...

My point was that if new 30" models are justifiable there certainly are no other size that can justify it. So the real reason has rather to do with the market than lack of new technologies (since there certainly are no shortage of new models in the 22-24" range). Though I'd agree that there aren't any new technologies that would make a world of difference there still is a need for incremental improvements (again, especially for the larger monitors).

Personally I have a hard time understanding what the difficulties with backlight bleed is all about, especially since a lot if not most (if I'm not mistaken) of the issue is related to the placement of panel and backlight. Seems there could be made a ton of improvements right there (I don't see heat expansion as a good enough excuse since the delta-thickness should negligible in that context (I assume)).
 

obobski

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
2,386
I sort of agree with the "Death of the 30 inch", even in spite of owning one, its a somewhat uncomfortable size for a desktop monitor, and the tech behind it feels clunky; I doubt consumers want to pay to improve this situation

e.g:
since moving from a single 30" to a pair of smaller monitors (a 23" and a 19"), I no longer have that "heat lamp" sensation when using my PC, and side to side they will draw the same colours and blacks (and the really sad part, we're comparing an S-PVA to a pair of TNs), I haven't used the new iMac yet, but I'd like to, I've got a positive experience from 24-26" displays so I'd assume its probably "just as good"

as far as the image scaler, I doubt if theres anything to be done for the latency, the two 30" models which feature such a device use some of the best processors available, and can't dodge that bullet; they've got more in common with HDTVs than desktop monitors

What good offering are you talking about? There is still much room for improvement in the 30" monitors currently on the market.
Most reasonably priced 30" (not costing much more than 2k$) I have seen lack many things or are flawed.
Just replacing the backlight on current 30" with LED would already be a big step. Those things are like heaters during summer and consume a big amount of power.
A good LED Backlight could also help with better quality 30" display.
And just as brumwald said they could try to fix the panel geometry on most 30", and that would also justify new models.
Just look at a blackscreen on most 30" move around them a bit and you will see that. Try to push slightly on the panel and you will feel it also(very noticable on most of the "newest" 30" from dell)
They can also improve on feature or on responsiveness/input lag. The screens that have a nice scaler (that I find quite usefull for that screen size) always seem to come with huge input lag, surely they can do better now.

the only display I can think of that would fit your bill here is the Samsung XL30, but thats a few thousand dollars
as far as other available models, consider that most of them are 2-6 years old and show relative stagnation in pricing and marketing (Cinema HD being the prime example)
 

visualguy

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 7, 2007
Messages
257
I sort of agree with the "Death of the 30 inch", even in spite of owning one, its a somewhat uncomfortable size for a desktop monitor, and the tech behind it feels clunky; I doubt consumers want to pay to improve this situation

e.g:
since moving from a single 30" to a pair of smaller monitors (a 23" and a 19"), I no longer have that "heat lamp" sensation when using my PC, and side to side they will draw the same colours and blacks (and the really sad part, we're comparing an S-PVA to a pair of TNs), I haven't used the new iMac yet, but I'd like to, I've got a positive experience from 24-26" displays so I'd assume its probably "just as good"

I use two 30" monitors. Al Gore uses three 30" monitors... I find that more screen real estate makes work easier, more efficient, and more pleasant. I use IPS panels (NEC which run hot) in the winter, and PVA panels (Eizo) with internal fans in the summer.

30" 2560x1600 is also awesome for gaming, especially now that video cards are good enough to run games at that resolution with full eye candy enabled. I know some people complain about lag - I guess I'm not a good-enough gamer to notice that...
 

obobski

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
2,386
I use two 30" monitors. Al Gore uses three 30" monitors... I find that more screen real estate makes work easier, more efficient, and more pleasant. I use IPS panels (NEC which run hot) in the winter, and PVA panels (Eizo) with internal fans in the summer.

30" 2560x1600 is also awesome for gaming, especially now that video cards are good enough to run games at that resolution with full eye candy enabled. I know some people complain about lag - I guess I'm not a good-enough gamer to notice that...

honestly for my work-flow, my setup is probably about as good as it gets (which is the ideal I would hope everyone strives for), its a dramatic improvement over the 30", and dual 30" monitors wouldn't really improve the situation (I just don't need 8.2MP of display space), if your setup works for you, thats great to hear (not sure what to say about switching sets of monitors depending on weather, aside from imaging how draining that would get based on my local climate)

I could also give a damn what Al Gore uses (as a side note: for "mr environment", dragging down >600W for his incredibly demanding workload (comprised mainly of keynote, mail, and safari) to be displayed is pretty sad)

my point was to agree with the OP's contention, the issues with commercially available 30" format displays make them obnoxious to many users, and it would seem that the consumer market isn't interested enough in such a niche product to push any sort of development/improvement
 

TehQuick

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 3, 2004
Messages
3,738
Hilarious. You guys expect new display models every year? like cars or something? This says a lot about the consumerism. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, and while 120hz and LED backlight are nice features, they are far from deal breakers in 30" market - that market is geared toward professionals, not gamers, and for the former the list of important features are far from having fastest response times or 3d capability. Once 3d tech matures, I'm sure we will see 30" or larger monitors doing that but at first the guinea pigs in 20"-22" should work out all the kinks. Same for LED - again, good idea but technology is not mature enough to transit into professional market.

Bottom line - 30" LCDs are not CONSUMER products, and they won't be for a some time.
 

laguerre

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 18, 2008
Messages
1,129
The majority of 22-24" monitors? Are you talking about TN? You can't compare such an expensive monitor as a 30" and compare it to a cheap TN where cost is the only real benchmark, it'd just be pointless. Rather compare the 30" to what an identical 22-24" monitor would perform (hard in reality).
Although I'd prefer not to compare the two, that is what is happening. Ask the average consumer if they plan on buying a TN or not, you won't find an informed answer. Would you agree that TNs were introduced because of the cheaper manufacturer cost? I would be pretty hard pressed to find out TN panels have a smaller profit margin than their equivalent sized counterparts, and that's even with the cheaper manufacturing cost. I agree that there is a small market for 30" and an incremental increase such as 27" is a more natural transition. But, note that there are quite a few 26-28 off-brand monitors out there right now that paved the way.
My point was that if new 30" models are justifiable there certainly are no other size that can justify it. So the real reason has rather to do with the market than lack of new technologies (since there certainly are no shortage of new models in the 22-24" range). Though I'd agree that there aren't any new technologies that would make a world of difference there still is a need for incremental improvements (again, especially for the larger monitors).

I'd agree up to the point that there is a need for incremental improvements. Consumers are now buying 32" (or larger) LCD TVs for their computer. The consumer is neither informed enough to understand a need for a better quality monitor, nor are they prepared to pay +$1k for a monitor versus $350 for a TV. Also, do you think that the sales of 30" monitors have decreased?

Don't misunderstand me, I want a new 30" monitor to come out, but I don't want an incremental change. When I invest +$1k on a monitor I want some insurance that it won't be outdated in 6 months. I think this is a reasonable demand and manufacturers understand this. There has been quite a change-up of input formats, backlighting, and processing in the past year, but nothing definitive in any area. As a manufacturer I would not take the risk of introducing a high risk (small target audience) product that could become obsolete from something as simple as not having a DP 1.2 connection.
 

brumwald

Gawd
Joined
Aug 1, 2006
Messages
598
Although I'd prefer not to compare the two, that is what is happening. Ask the average consumer if they plan on buying a TN or not, you won't find an informed answer. Would you agree that TNs were introduced because of the cheaper manufacturer cost? I would be pretty hard pressed to find out TN panels have a smaller profit margin than their equivalent sized counterparts, and that's even with the cheaper manufacturing cost. I agree that there is a small market for 30" and an incremental increase such as 27" is a more natural transition. But, note that there are quite a few 26-28 off-brand monitors out there right now that paved the way.

I guess you can compare them in different ways. Either you set out to buy the cheapest monitor available, and if you happen to want a small screen that will give you a TN panel but if you are going to buy a 30" screen you will get a much better panel. So on that I agree, but how realistic is that? The typical consumer doesn't buy a 30" monitor anyway.

Ask anyone that actually thinks of buying an 30" display, is he/she lilely to choose between the cheapest 22" available, or, a 30" IPS monitor? No most likely it will be between an IPS 24-26" monitor and in that regard the 24"-26" will *always* be both cheaper and better in terms of performance and quailty. That I think is the most realistic way to look at it.

The third way to look at it would be where the focus is at quality and nothing else. This would mean to put a 24" (as an example) vs. a 30" and pretty much either get the best of the respective sizes or the best for a certain amount of money. The 24" will most certainly win in every regard and it is quite a realistic scenario as well, partly because 30" displays have so many quality issues compared to the smaller sizes.

I'd agree up to the point that there is a need for incremental improvements. Consumers are now buying 32" (or larger) LCD TVs for their computer. The consumer is neither informed enough to understand a need for a better quality monitor, nor are they prepared to pay +$1k for a monitor versus $350 for a TV. Also, do you think that the sales of 30" monitors have decreased?

Don't misunderstand me, I want a new 30" monitor to come out, but I don't want an incremental change. When I invest +$1k on a monitor I want some insurance that it won't be outdated in 6 months. I think this is a reasonable demand and manufacturers understand this. There has been quite a change-up of input formats, backlighting, and processing in the past year, but nothing definitive in any area. As a manufacturer I would not take the risk of introducing a high risk (small target audience) product that could become obsolete from something as simple as not having a DP 1.2 connection.

Exactly, the consumer is not informed - all the more reason to put out a new model, consumers will buy it eventhough they have no need for it. The way it goes is that newer is always better in the eyes of the market. As for TVs it's hard to compete with that, but I don't think it's that common (not that 30" are common, but the ones buying a TV wouldn't settle for a 22" TN either).

And just because there is a new model doesn't mean that the old one is outdated (and is that a problem if it was?), that would only hold if there actually were any serious improvements made to the new model (if there came a new 3008WFP with DP 1.2 I couldn't care less (if that was the only difference) but it would hype the product more for new consumers and if some uninformed consumers actually upgrade to the new model then what has the manufacturer lost?). If the improvements were incremental and not serious enough to warrant an upgrade then there is no need to be bothered by it if you already have the old model. And if an upgrade is warranted all the better for the manufacturer, right? And all the better for the consumer as well, since it was worth paying for an upgrade.

The way it is now is that all 30" are obsolete by that reasoning, just that there are no new ones that replace them. This puts off new buyers and slows down the evolution. And I argue that the reason for that is solely because of the narrow market, not that there aren't any improvements to be made.

You don't want an incremental change, that means you want a groundbreaking change? How amused would you be to buy a +$1k monitor and the next month have it completely replaced by some superior monitor for the same price? (Many potential buyers are afraid of that, with good reason (not that I expect many improvements soon but a small one would come a long way)). And new 30" releases are not easy to predict. People have been saying *soon* for many years waiting for HP. The 3009WFP shines with it's absence and is now replaced by rumors for U3010, the only way to be sure would be to buy one just after the groundbreaking improvements - looking back we only get incremental improvements with a few years in between so that could mean a decade or so of waiting (I got tired after less than 6 months)... The progress since HP LP3065, thats 2006, is almost nonexistent.

The effort put in making 30" displays seems to be quite low, not that I don't understand their priorities. It just saddens me that the market doesn't value quality.
 

Keldun

n00b
Joined
Apr 5, 2008
Messages
22
I sort of agree with the "Death of the 30 inch", even in spite of owning one, its a somewhat uncomfortable size for a desktop monitor, and the tech behind it feels clunky; I doubt consumers want to pay to improve this situation

e.g:
since moving from a single 30" to a pair of smaller monitors (a 23" and a 19"), I no longer have that "heat lamp" sensation when using my PC, and side to side they will draw the same colours and blacks (and the really sad part, we're comparing an S-PVA to a pair of TNs), I haven't used the new iMac yet, but I'd like to, I've got a positive experience from 24-26" displays so I'd assume its probably "just as good"

as far as the image scaler, I doubt if theres anything to be done for the latency, the two 30" models which feature such a device use some of the best processors available, and can't dodge that bullet; they've got more in common with HDTVs than desktop monitors



the only display I can think of that would fit your bill here is the Samsung XL30, but thats a few thousand dollars
as far as other available models, consider that most of them are 2-6 years old and show relative stagnation in pricing and marketing (Cinema HD being the prime example)

That screen looks nice, but for this price without a good scaler and more input I dont think I' d use it to replace my current screen.
I think my ideal screen for now would be this screen or maybe something similar using ips with a nice scaler like the one in the 3008 from dell (If there's no way to reduce it I guess I could live with the input lag :p) and more input since I like to use the screen with a bunch of different things in different resolutions like ps3 ,laptop, pc etc..
 
Last edited:

Lateralus

More [H]uman than Human
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
16,587
I'm fine with 2560x1440. 1600 pixels is a lot of height, and 30" 16:10 displays are just too big for me, I think. A 27-30", 2560x1440 display would be great.

I could care less about a 30" at that res, but I'd consider a 27" with that resolution *if* it wasn't TN and if it was significantly cheaper than what the 30" displays are currently selling for. Unfortunately, I don't know it if it would be a lot cheaper because high-res panels are just expensive to make...though if they made them in higher volume it's entirely possible.
 

laguerre

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 18, 2008
Messages
1,129
Caring less about minor changes like DP 1.2, and yet encouraging the need for incremental changes, even though you wouldn't buy one? Perhaps rather than being the voice of the consumer, you're reaping an indirect benefit which is different.

A poll would be interesting to see how many viewers of [H]Forum have 30", LCD tvs, <22", 22"- 24", and >24<30.

I think there is a general transition to a larger screen sizes. Would you buy a 120hz 1680x1050 22" display in order to take advantage of superior features? There are many features that have to be weighed before you justify it's use. USB 3.0, DP 1.2, LED, panel tech, 120hz, HDMI. Each of these items can play a role, but when manufacturers take a poll of existing 30" screen owners, I'm guessing the first two priorities are size and resolution. Until we see competition in this field, I don't see a change. As I said before, 30" monitors outclass the competition. The 27" derivatives are a starting place, but until the gap is bridged, it will be as OP stated, a not so bright future.

I for one would be interested in a few 30s" if a number of the emerging technologies were implemented. I don't mind spending a few bucks for 3 30s" if I know they will last. As you said though, if I can get 3 24" with the same quality or better with only a sacrifice to resolution and size, that will probably be my ticket, but that means I'm not the consumer. That is why I don't think we're an accurate representation of the consumers driving the need for 30" monitors.
 

visualguy

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 7, 2007
Messages
257
Each of these items can play a role, but when manufacturers take a poll of existing 30" screen owners, I'm guessing the first two priorities are size and resolution.

DisplayPort 1.2 supports 3840x2400. That would be a great next step in resolution. The panel size can still be increased a little beyond 30" for a computer monitor. The main problem is that pixels will be smaller than on current 2560x1600 30" monitors, but scaling can be used to address that for applications where that is a problem...
 

pawstar

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
465
DisplayPort 1.2 supports 3840x2400. That would be a great next step in resolution. The panel size can still be increased a little beyond 30" for a computer monitor. The main problem is that pixels will be smaller than on current 2560x1600 30" monitors, but scaling can be used to address that for applications where that is a problem...

What do you know ... I come lurking back here and there is an interesting 30" monitor thread. BTW, a 30" 3280x2048 panel does exist out there (and its even an IPS one), and so does a monitor supporting it. Too bad it costs both arms, legs and a kidney. http://www.barco.com/en/medical/product/1909/specs . I wonder who actually manufactures it.

Hate to see the devastating predictions about the end of 30" monitors. There isn't a good 30" out there yet, and manufs want to kill the product line. Gah!
 

RadXge

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,849
I said it before and I will say it again I want my 30" RGB LED LCD monitor @2560*1600 with local dimming.
I want it... NOW!:mad:
 

TehQuick

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 3, 2004
Messages
3,738
I said it before and I will say it again I want my 30" RGB LED LCD monitor @2560*1600 with local dimming.
I want it... NOW!:mad:

Unfortunately (or luckily, depending on point of view), people like you are not the target audience for 30" LCD monitor manufacturers :D
 

wagsrules

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
1,051
I said it before and I will say it again I want my 30" RGB LED LCD monitor @2560*1600 with local dimming.
I want it... NOW!:mad:

This was posted in another thread but it totally makes sense.

Local Dimming artifacts.

Each zone a local dimming monitor is usually around 2000 pixels. So think about when you have have white text on a black background. You will have a pure black background, but your text fits in maybe a 12x12 pixel block, yet you will need to turn on a 45x45 pixel block around each character to see it (more if it isn't aligned) this will result in big halos around text, edges, everywhere.

These aren't so noticable on video viewing from across the room as it is a much more averaged signal, and it is in motion, but on a computer monitor display static, sharp, pixel precise edges everywhere from close up, it will be completely and annoyingly obvious.

Local dimming isn't coming to desktop LCD monitors.
 

edifyingkarma

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 8, 2008
Messages
1,465
Screw 30inchers! Gimme a 46in @ 2560x1440 over a 30in @ 2560x1600 any day. You don't miss the height on a screen that size and at that high of a resolution, it will still look fabulous.
 

DevonK

n00b
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
49
Thirty inch displays with scalers (AFAIK the Dell 3008 and the Gateway XHD3000) actually test well for input lag at their native resolution - it's when you drop to lower resolutions and the scaler gets engaged that lag jumps up. My Gateway tested out with only a 1-frame (16msec) lag at native resolution but lag spiked with any other resolution.

Other than the heat issue, the Gateway was great - razor sharp, great color, minimal edge bleed (it would pretty well dissapear when warmed up) and generally good but not outstanding in the evenness of its blacklighting. As an HDTV it was incredible - color accuracy was excellent, though its black levels did not match the best Panasonic and Pioneer plasmas.The big problem was its reliability - after heavy use as both a monitor and an HD TV for a year it developed nasty flashing and pinstriping artifacts two weeks after the warranty expired and can't be fixed (see the XHD3000 thread here for more from others on this common problem).
 

Happy Hopping

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 1, 2004
Messages
7,026
This was posted in another thread but it totally makes sense.

Local Dimming artifacts.

Each zone a local dimming monitor is usually around 2000 pixels. So think about when you have have white text on a black background. You will have a pure black background, but your text fits in maybe a 12x12 pixel block, yet you will need to turn on a 45x45 pixel block around each character to see it (more if it isn't aligned) this will result in big halos around text, edges, everywhere.

These aren't so noticable on video viewing from across the room as it is a much more averaged signal, and it is in motion, but on a computer monitor display static, sharp, pixel precise edges everywhere from close up, it will be completely and annoyingly obvious.

Local dimming isn't coming to desktop LCD monitors.

not quite. LG has LED LCD TV, and at 22" say, 1366x768 can easily be used as a desktop computer monitor,

http://www.lg.com/us/tv-audio-video/televisions/LG-led-tv-22LE5300.jsp
 
Top