Why do laptops have *good* AG coatings and desktops suck?

P

Pultzar

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 22, 2010
Messages
198
My wife's sony laptop has a wonderful screen. The AG coating keeps it from looking like a mirror while being light enough that it doesn't cause sparkles or text to become blurry.

The newer Macbook Pro's with AG also look nice. Laptops have small dot pitch so they clearly need AG coatings to accommodate this.

Then we have our desktop monitors with a crystal haze smeared over them. Even high end displays like the 2711 and 3011 reportedly have this. Why not use the coating like on the laptops which can work so well for them? Is it the size of the display? Do the manufacturers just not care? Hmm

(as a disclaimer, I have also seen laptops with horrible coating. However this particular Sony is amazing)
 
Laptops almost exclusively use TN panels, and for some reason desktop TN panels doesn't seem to be as affected as the more expensive IPS panels. Why that seems to be the case I have no clue but it might be related. And as you pointed out, the AG coating found on many desktop displays just wouldn't work on a display with the DPI of a notebook display - the whole AG thing is a mystery and manufacturers just doesn't seem to take notice of the cries in sites such as hardforum - maybe we are just too much of a minority.
 
I posted a similar comment in another thread a while back. I bought a 19" Xerox XG91D back in 2005 and loved it. The panel used what was called XShield glass. The XShield glass layer was designed to eliminate glare (very well) and was also almost completely invisible to the naked eye.

I don't really understand why something like this isn't used on all modern desktop screens. With my 6 year old Xerox, I could use the LCD under a fluorescent light and glare was a non-issue. Whites also looked very clean and there was no "sparkle" effect. Fast forward to 2011, we have the DELL U2711 and U3011 which look very grungy due to an absolutely unnecessary 3H AG coating. I really don't get it, unless it's cheaper and LG is simply trying to cut corners on cost??? No idea. :mad:
 
There is a simple solution, don't get the 24"+ Dell models. Sadly Fujitsu who just released a better 27" than the U2711, but it also uses the harsh AG coating.

Best thing to do is to wait it out for the Samsung PLS panels, or settle with the Dell U2311H which offers superior performance to any of their larger models.
 
I'm considering the 2311 to hold me over for awhile. How is the AG coating on this display? Compared to the U2410 which can be had for $450 right now?
 
It uses the normal amount while the U2410 uses the harsh coating, it also offers superior image quality at nearly half the price.
 
@ Pultzar

not to highjack the thread but where are you finding the U2410 for $450?
 
Simple.. laptop screens are 14-17". A 27-30" monitor is going to pickup a ton more glare...
 
I have a theory that the AG coatings on IPS panels are not more aggressive than those on TN panels, but rather, the layer that contains the subpixels is closer to the surface on a TN and deeper below the surface on an IPS. (VA panels would apparently be somewhere between.)

The more distance there is between a translucent piece of plastic and whatever's underneath it, the foggier the object underneath it will look when viewed through the plastic. At relatively close (but non-zero) distances, the fogginess turns into graininess if the surface beneath has fine structure (e.g., a grid of pixels).

I've voiced this theory before on HardForum and nobody's ever commented on it. It makes a whole lot more sense to me than "The manufacturers are punishing us with grainy screens for the privilege of using high-end LCDs, because they want us to hate them and go with cheaper LCDs or CRTs instead!"

If by design IPS simply must have subpixels deeper below the surface, then the only way to avoid graininess would be to make them glossy. Why glossy IPS LCDs are so hard to find, and impossible to find if you want a 30", is another matter — one I find impossible to explain.

To me, a desktop LCD benefits the most from being glossy. The desktop computer can be put in a room of the house that has the least glare, and from then on it will stay there and glare will not be a problem (of course glare can be seasonal, but if the room has effective drapes/blinds, they can be closed at the worst times of day for glare). OTOH, a laptop will be moved around, and will face situations where glare is a big issue and can't be blocked; laptop displays benefit the most from being matte. Ironically, my laptop is glossy and my desktop is matte, exactly the opposite from what I want.
 
Last edited:
Best explanation I've come across.

(although I do not share your opinion on glossy screens displays, I can't imagine any scenario I'd prefer glossy over matte)
 
There's a major difference in coating rougness and graininess between a Dell U2410 (belonging to a colleague) and NEC lcd2490wuxi.
Older IPS panels manufactured by IDtech were also pretty light on the coating. I only own some laptop panels from them though. One major revision was made which featured a bit more additional AG coating.
Here's the original 15" QXGA panel coating:
http://kom.aau.dk/~oesteraa/EDIDs/QXGA/IMG_2364.JPG .
I'll try to find the revised panel tomorrow (which is UXGA) and grab some new pictures.

The LCD2490WUXI has a heavier coating than the qxga - about the same as the revised laptop panel, but the U2410 has much more than either. So i think it's very much up to manufacturers (and customers) to decide. :)
 
MetaGenie said:
I have a theory that the AG coatings on IPS panels are not more aggressive than those on TN panels, but rather, the layer that contains the subpixels is closer to the surface on a TN and deeper below the surface on an IPS. (VA panels would apparently be somewhere between.)

The more distance there is between a translucent piece of plastic and whatever's underneath it, the foggier the object underneath it will look when viewed through the plastic. At relatively close (but non-zero) distances, the fogginess turns into graininess if the surface beneath has fine structure (e.g., a grid of pixels).

I've voiced this theory before on HardForum and nobody's ever commented on it.
Click to expand...

I commented that this really doesn't make sense the last time someone posted it. Perhaps it wasn't you.

It has been repeatedly demonstrated that the AG coating is a surface treatment. I didn't bother keeping the link, but one time someone even posted some microscopic surface images of different coatings. The stronger the coating, the rougher the surface.

You can also use packing tape on the AG coating to fill in gaps in the rough surface and limit the blur.

I did this to take a macro image of my pixel structure. It is clear where the packing tape is.

pixeltape.jpg


It is pretty much 100% definitive that AG is completely from the rough surface coating.
 
Last edited:
AG coating needs to be yet another category in LCD reviews pointing out flaws in this pathetic technology. And laptop screens are not good. I had to LOL at that considering I spent literally all day last Sunday at frys pawing machines after I got salesman out of the way including Sonys. Maybe Dreamcolor is good or some of the tablets with IPS or AFFS+ but they had none. None were as good as my 3 years old 1600x1200 T60p with flexview which they unfortunately no longer offer after Lenovo wrecked Thinkpad or I'd buy another.

I ended up ordering this sight unseen can your wifes laptop do this?

3.jpg
 
Last edited:
Hmm that looks like either an X60t or X61t with 12.1" SXGA+ AFFS? Pretty cool :)
I still use my T60p with IPS - even though the color space is more limited, i don't know what i would buy today - they're either 16:9 or/and glossy or have 200:1 CR and of low pixel density.
It's hard to get hold of AFFS panels, so Lenovo probably ditched the idea to solely rely on one manufacturer. Idtech was sold to Sony, when the IBM pc division was sold to Lenovo.
 
No it's a x201 tablet with 450 nit Outdoor Display digitizer only no multitouch,* this $320 option is like finding a needle in a haystack online and Lenovo no longer offers it in builds since November, AFFS/PVA only ~ 250nit only.

And yeah don't even get me started on 16:9, what's next? 2.35:1 so we get like 4 lines of text on screen before having to scroll?

I would have tried a Dreamcolor if it wernt for 16:9 and $3500:p
 
Last edited:
ZoNe said:
AG coating needs to be yet another category in LCD reviews pointing out flaws in this pathetic technology. And laptop screens are not good. I had to LOL at that considering I spent literally all day last Sunday at frys pawing machines after I got salesman out of the way including Sonys. Maybe Dreamcolor is good or some of the tablets with IPS or AFFS+ but they had none. None were as good as my 3 years old 1600x1200 T60p with flexview which they unfortunately no longer offer after Lenovo wrecked Thinkpad or I'd buy another.

I ended up ordering this sight unseen can your wifes laptop do this?

3.jpg
Click to expand...

No, her laptop does not have a viewing angle like that. However from straight on the image is stunning without AG haze or glossy reflections. It is one of the higher end models, I forget the number though.
 
Snowdog said:
I commented that this really doesn't make sense the last time someone posted it. Perhaps it wasn't you.

It has been repeatedly demonstrated that the AG coating is a surface treatment. I didn't bother keeping the link, but one time someone even posted some microscopic surface images of different coatings. The stronger the coating, the rougher the surface.

You can also use packing tape on the AG coating to fill in gaps in the rough surface and limit the blur.

I did this to take a macro image of my pixel structure. It is clear where the packing tape is.

It is pretty much 100% definitive that AG is completely from the rough surface coating.
Click to expand...

Um, yes. I'm pretty sure I gave you the idea to try that packing tape trick in the first place (and I got the idea in turn from reading LumenLab forum threads). Packing tape isn't 100% effective at getting rid of the AG graininess because 1) it's not a perfect match for the coating's index of refraction, and 2) the tape has some slight roughness itself and adds some graininess of its own. My experiments showed that Scotch Packaging Tape reduced my 3007WFC-HC's pixel noise from 5.9% to 2.0%. But a 50/50 clove oil / cedar oil mix reduced the pixel noise to 1.0%. (This coating was unfortunately temporary, because oil flows...)

Here is an animated GIF showing how noisy a patch of my 3007WFP-HC's screen is 1) just as it is, 2) with Scotch Packaging Tape on top of it, 3) how it would look ideally, with no noise or distortion
Dell_3007WFP-HC_anti-glare_and_tape.gif

I was able to do this post-processing on close-up photos of the monitor because my Canon 100mm USM Macro lens is almost perfectly rectilinear, so cropping a rectangle from a very well-aligned photo of the screen and downsampling it to its true pixel dimensions yields no moire (as long as the photo was taken at a small enough aperture to do complete anti-aliasing through diffraction).

What I'm saying is that the same AG coating will cause more graininess if the pixels are deeper below the surface. Of course it will also cause more graininess if the coating itself is stronger. We really don't know which one it is, and it would be really hard to find out without destroying some monitors. I do think it would make much more sense if it were the former option, because why the heck would manufacturers make AG coatings stronger when the weaker coatings already did a fine job at reducing sharp reflections, and a stronger coating resulted in much more annoying graininess?

Also, the same AG coating will cause less graininess if there is less black space between subpixels. This is why most H-IPS LCDs are less grainy than S-IPS that are otherwise similar in make.
 
Last edited:
That is a pretty amazing bit of Macro photography and alignment.

All evidence though, seems to point to it just being a simple change in coating.

As I stated, in one of these threads, someone once posted a microscopic image of the coatings. The correlation was direct between surface roughness and the degree of AG aggressiveness.

I have an A-TW NEC screen, which has an extra polarizer to eliminate the white glow. If anything this likely only increases the thickness of coating, yet the A-TW screens had a less aggressive AG than LG screens without A-TW.

It should be obvious that less aggressive coatings are possible. Heck they sell user AG coatings for iPads where the depth is massive because of the glass touch screen and you can get different AG levels.

I think is just pointless speculation on minutia, to suggest some tiny (and unsubstantiated) potential differences in depth are having a large effect here.
 
Snowdog said:
That is a pretty amazing bit of Macro photography and alignment.
Click to expand...
Thank you. It was fun.

Here's some 100% crops to give an idea: without tape and with tape. Operating on these posted images will not give the proper results; I operated on the raw linear data (.CR2 converted with dcraw) and used f/32 images instead of f/2.8 that were otherwise framed the same, but the f/32 images would be less exciting to show here, as they're much softer.

Snowdog said:
All evidence though, seems to point to it just being a simple change in coating.

As I stated, in one of these threads, someone once posted a microscopic image of the coatings. The correlation was direct between surface roughness and the degree of AG aggressiveness.
Click to expand...
I have not seen such a post. I'd appreciate it very much if you could point me to it. I'd pretty much assumed that the "strong vs. hard" AG coating idea was an unsubstantiated rumor.

I think the best scientific test to compare AG coating strength would be to test how well each AG coating does what it's intended to do — diffusing reflected light. Aim a green laser at one, at a specified angle, with a white paper or projection screen catching the laser's reflection, and take a photo of the diffused reflection (with no ambient light, of course). Do the same thing on another monitor, with the same laser being placed at exactly the same relative angle to the monitor in the same room in the same spot, and take a photo of that reflection with the same camera and exposure. Compare the photos and see if either is more diffused.

I only have one IPS LCD so I can't do this test, unfortunately.

Snowdog said:
I have an A-TW NEC screen, which has an extra polarizer to eliminate the white glow. If anything this likely only increases the thickness of coating, yet the A-TW screens had a less aggressive AG than LG screens without A-TW.
Click to expand...
Are you sure the A-TW is an extra polarizer? I thought it was just a different type of polarizer replacing the normal type, not supplementing it. Maybe an A-TW polarizer is thinner.

Snowdog said:
It should be obvious that less aggressive coatings are possible. Heck they sell user AG coatings for iPads where the depth is massive because of the glass touch screen and you can get different AG levels.
Click to expand...
It just doesn't make sense to me that manufacturers would choose a more aggressive coating when the less aggressive one is just fine at reducing the kind of glare that's distracting. (The total glare will of course be the same between matte and glossy; the matte just blurs the glare.) It would be as if they want to cripple their monitors.

Snowdog said:
I think is just pointless speculation on minutia, to suggest some tiny (and unsubstantiated) potential differences in depth are having a large effect here.
Click to expand...
It don't think it's pointless at all. It would make a big difference to me whether the effect is mostly from a difference in AG coating strength or from pixel depth. The former would almost suggest that LCD manufacturers are intentionally crippling their products (and not offering any alternative, in the case of 30" IPS monitors). The latter would suggest that the very design of the LCD itself required that pixels be placed deeper, which is more forgivable. (Although killing A-TW technology is perhaps less forgivable.)
 
Last edited:
It's definitely the anti-glare film and nothing more. People have removed the anti-glare film to get rid of the graininess, and glossy IPS monitors don't have the graininess.

The A-TW filter has no correlation either. The HP DreamColor LP2480zx has both the grainy anti-glare film and the A-TW filter, while the Planar PX2611W had the lighter anti-glare film without the A-TW filter. Also, both variations of the DoubleSight DS-263N with and without the A-TW filter had the lighter anti-glare film.

MetaGenie said:
It just doesn't make sense to me that manufacturers would choose a more aggressive coating when the less aggressive one is just fine at reducing the kind of glare that's distracting. (The total glare will of course be the same between matte and glossy; the matte just blurs the glare.) It would be as if they want to cripple their monitors.
Click to expand...
LG is intentionally crippling their products by not using the A-TW filter with every IPS panel. LG is intentionally crippling their products with their recent 6-bit IPS panels. LG is crippling their products with their poor quality control. It's pretty clear that LG doesn't care about quality. I hope Samsung does a better job with their PLS panels.
 
MetaGenie said:
It don't think it's pointless at all. It would make a big difference to me whether the effect is mostly from a difference in AG coating strength or from pixel depth. The former would almost suggest that LCD manufacturers are intentionally crippling their products (and not offering any alternative, in the case of 30" IPS monitors). The latter would suggest that the very design of the LCD itself required that pixels be placed deeper, which is more forgivable. (Although killing A-TW technology is perhaps less forgivable.)
Click to expand...

I looked but I could not find the microscope photos of AG surfaces.

I just don't think your theory has any real substantiation. Depth differences are likely very small, it seems much more likely that it simply is a more aggressive coating.

A-TW is likely a secondary polarizer to tame the glow. You still need a standard one to get light in proper alignment. If one thinner polarizer could do both, why wouldn't it be standard?

All the high AG monitors come from LG. It is likely just their coating of choice. Also just because you see it as crippling, doesn't mean LG does or even that a majority do. They see it as a professional choice to eliminate reflections.

I just turned off my monitor and my LCD TV. And examined the surface with naked eye, my TV coating looks smoother and more reflective. Turning them on and placing on object on top to observe parallax to pixels below, shows no real depth differences.

The simplest and most likely cause here is the coating differences.

Even if the depth difference was huge and it did have a stronger effect, LG could still design/specify a less aggressive coating to counter that effect. That it hasn't is an indication that LG doesn't consider strong AG a significant problem, regardless of the cause.

I really think you are just fixated without any proof, and going down a rat hole here.
 
Snowdog said:
Also just because you see it as crippling, doesn't mean LG does or even that a majority do. They see it as a professional choice to eliminate reflections.
Click to expand...

I'll agree with you Snowdog that the pros/cons of LG's manufacturing process are subjective. That being said, XEROX XShield glass does a fantastic job with eliminating reflections and unlike LG's AG coating, XShield glass is nearly invisible to the naked eye. Why not use something like this? If reflections can be completely eliminated on $150 monitors with no graininess, why eliminate them with an aggressive coating that causes massive grain on the panel? It appears LG has zero interest in quality control, and in the case of the IPS market, they tried to kill a fly with a cruise missile.
 
Okay, the anecdotal evidence is starting to make it look like there really are significant differences in the "aggressiveness" of different AG coatings. But I'd much prefer objective data to subjective impressions.

At least do a simple experiment, like taking a photo of the camera's reflection in two different LCD monitors of the same technology (e.g. S-IPS, or H-IPS — they should both be the same), one of which is rumored to have a strong AG coating and the other one weaker, with the same lighting, camera-to-LCD distance, focus distance and focal length.

Snowdog said:
Turning them on and placing on object on top to observe parallax to pixels below, shows no real depth differences.
Click to expand...
But that's precisely why I think pixel depth must have a significant effect on the graininess imposed by an AG coating. Since the depth is so small, any small variation in it should have a large effect, as long as the depth is not much smaller than the thickness of the AG coating.

I still think that there's a good chance that the difference in typical graininess of different LCD technologies, e.g. TN vs VA vs IPS, might be largely due to pixel depth (with AG coating strength and amount of black between subpixels also contributing).

The other computer in my house has a 19" TN monitor (an Acer AL1916W), and comparing it with my S-IPS Dell 3007WFP-HC (with both turned off), the TN's screen looks less reflective than the S-IPS (i.e., the TN's reflections are even fuzzier and less defined), but the TN has virtually no visible graininess.
 
Last edited:
We will just have to agree to disagree on that one. In practice it doesn't even matter. Because even if it was depth related, LG could still just design a less aggressive AG layer.
 
MetaGenie said:
Packing tape isn't 100% effective at getting rid of the AG graininess because 1) it's not a perfect match for the coating's index of refraction, and 2) the tape has some slight roughness itself and adds some graininess of its own. My experiments showed that Scotch Packaging Tape reduced my 3007WFC-HC's pixel noise from 5.9% to 2.0%. But a 50/50 clove oil / cedar oil mix reduced the pixel noise to 1.0%. (This coating was unfortunately temporary, because oil flows...)
Click to expand...

Thinking about the above...

Instead of oil, are there not clear jelly products which may be smoothly applied over the anti-glare? The jelly would not run like oil. Of course there could be other problems, like dust getting stuck, the jelly affecting the anti-glare coating, etc.

Unless there's a clear glue that can be smoothly applied and which sets hard?

Are there not perhaps clear films which may be applied over the entire anti-glare screen to reduce the noise?

Of course the real solution is for the panel to come with a mild coating in the first place. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
ToastyX said:
LG is intentionally crippling their products by not using the A-TW filter with every IPS panel. LG is intentionally crippling their products with their recent 6-bit IPS panels. LG is crippling their products with their poor quality control. It's pretty clear that LG doesn't care about quality.
Click to expand...
This.

I really only have one explanation - the very rough AG coating might be cheaper. When you look at the newest EIZO sPVA oder cPVA displays (using Samsung panels) it becomes pretty clear that you can eliminate reflection without raping your panel.
 
NCX said:
There is a simple solution, don't get the 24"+ Dell models. Sadly Fujitsu who just released a better 27" than the U2711, but it also uses the harsh AG coating.
Click to expand...

Fujitsu panel is only 1920 x 1080.

U2711's panel has 2560 x 1440.
 
Rokodo said:
Fujitsu panel is only 1920 x 1080.

U2711's panel has 2560 x 1440.
Click to expand...

The Fujitsu P27T-6 is 2560x1440, same as the U2711. Unfortunately the AG is atrociously FUGLY, so there is nothing to see here.
 
you guys that hate the AG coating/filter, why not go for the apple cinema display? Would be great in a room without serious glare issues, right? Or are there other problems with the display? Doesn't seem to be talked about much
 
mahdiy85 said:
you guys that hate the AG coating/filter, why not go for the apple cinema display? Would be great in a room without serious glare issues, right? Or are there other problems with the display? Doesn't seem to be talked about much
Click to expand...

I did and its the best monitor I have ever owned, but with a glossy finish it can only be used under controlled lightning. For office use, it would be nice if there was a 2560x1440 display on the market with a light AG coating similar to most TN displays. Bizarrely, such a product is non-existent.

The ACD27" EDIDs also do not support 1920x1080p natively, which sucks for Blu-Ray Disc and PS3.
 
Ashok0 said:
I did and its the best monitor I have ever owned, but with a glossy finish it can only be used under controlled lightning.
Click to expand...

Same here, I won't make the mistake of buying grainy AG panels ever again. After getting the Apple 27", I'm realizing that glossy is the only way (for me). I have controlled lighting so the glare is a non-issue and the image is beautiful. I suppose I might consider a display with AG coating again but only if there were no better glossy options and if the coating was very slight. Anything like the U2711, I will just stay far, far away...
 
SaladDressing said:
Thinking about the above...

Instead of oil, are there not clear jelly products which may be smoothly applied over the anti-glare? The jelly would not run like oil. Of course there could be other problems, like dust getting stuck, the jelly affecting the anti-glare coating, etc.

Unless there's a clear glue that can be smoothly applied and which sets hard?

Are there not perhaps clear films which may be applied over the entire anti-glare screen to reduce the noise?
Click to expand...
I've spent much time researching this. I want to make my Dell 3007WFP-HC glossy, because there are no 2560x1600 (or higher) glossy IPS LCDs on the market. One solution would be:

1) Use an anti-reflective film like HEA2000K-clear but without any adhesive. It's not sufficient merely to remove the adhesive from HEA2000K-clear (e.g. with acetone), because this leaves a rough surface where the adhesive used to be. (The built-in adhesive in HEA2000K-clear is no good, as it does not match the index of refraction of the AG coating.)
2) Use HXTAL NYL-1 Epoxy Adhesive to glue the AR film to the AG coating. This optically clear epoxy has an index of refraction very closely matching my measurement of my 3007WFP-HC's AG coating's index of refraction.

This would have the advantage of not requiring the AG coating to be removed, which has some unknown risks involved especially as nobody has yet tried to remove the AG coating from a 30" monitor (or at least nobody has reported trying to).

The disadvantage would be that HXTAL NYL-1 probably cannot be removed, so this might be just as permanent as AG coating removal. And there is no HEA2000K-without-adhesive on the market; I contacted Tigold asking if I could buy some customized to have no adhesive. I got an answer, but it was that I would have had to buy it in huge bulk, 150 sheets minimum, at a price of US$96 per sheet. That would be $14400. I was shocked and dismayed by this. If it had been in the range of 10 sheets or so, for about $1000 or so, I would've tried it.

An alternative solution could be to remove the AG coating, and then replace it with HEA2000K-clear. There would be no need to match the adhesive's index of refraction to anything, so this would also result in minimal graininess. But nobody's tried this on a 30" monitor, so I'd be taking an unknown risk.

A more complicated solution would be to glue a clear plastic film to the AG coating with HXTAL NYL-1. This would make the monitor glossy, but would also make it very reflective. Then I could put HEA2000K-clear on top of that. It's not a very appealing solution, as the end result would have three layers: AG coating, clear plastic, AR film. Besides which, it's hard even to find clear plastic film of the required size to cover a 30" monitor.

BrePu said:
ToastyX said:
LG is intentionally crippling their products by not using the A-TW filter with every IPS panel. LG is intentionally crippling their products with their recent 6-bit IPS panels. LG is crippling their products with their poor quality control. It's pretty clear that LG doesn't care about quality. I hope Samsung does a better job with their PLS panels.
Click to expand...
This.

I really only have one explanation - the very rough AG coating might be cheaper. When you look at the newest EIZO sPVA oder cPVA displays (using Samsung panels) it becomes pretty clear that you can eliminate reflection without raping your panel.
Click to expand...
Actually the point I've been trying to make in this thread is that different LCD techologies may have their pixels at different depths relative to the AG coating. I've had no chance to see myself, but from what I've heard, PVA generally have less graininess than IPS, and that leads me to suspect that:

1) PVA has its pixels closer to the surface, with fewer or thinner layers separating them from the AG coating.
2) PVA has less black space between subpixels.
(it could be either or both of the above.)

Why would all PVAs be built with less aggressive AG coatings, and all IPSes be built with more aggressive AG coatings? It would make no sense. I think there are other factors at play here. (And the same applies to TN versus IPS, except that of course there are no 27" or 30" TN presumably because the vertical brightness & gamma shift would be too great.)
 
MetaGenie said:
Why would all PVAs be built with less aggressive AG coatings, and all IPSes be built with more aggressive AG coatings?
Click to expand...

This is a great questions, AG coatings is one of the big disadvantages of the IPS panel and can't understand why.
AG coatings was one of the main reason why I choosed a PVA over an IPS.
 
sblantipodi said:
MetaGenie said:
Why would all PVAs be built with less aggressive AG coatings, and all IPSes be built with more aggressive AG coatings?
Click to expand...
This is a great questions, AG coatings is one of the big disadvantages of the IPS panel and can't understand why.
AG coatings was one of the main reason why I choosed a PVA over an IPS.
Click to expand...
You've taken my comment out of context and thus distorted it.

What I was saying was, I suspect that the average IPS AG coating and PVA AG coating are not significantly different. The difference in graininess would be a result of a difference in pixel depth and/or amount of black space between subpixels.

Problem is, I have no direct evidence. To investigate this I'd pretty much have to order a PVA LCD myself. Since I don't know for sure that the same coatings are used in small PVA LCDs and 30" PVA LCDs, I'd have to order a 30" just to be sure. Then I'd have to either return it or keep it... returning it would be inconsiderate to the seller (buying something just to experiment on it then send it back), and keeping it would be very expensive for something that still has some graininess (I want no graininess at all).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top