|
5930 Posts
Out of all of the IPS/PLS monitors for gaming, NECs do very well in motion performance. They are generally, at worse, as bad as the Dell Ultrasharps (monitors even you recommended) and at best, the best IPS monitor in terms of motion performance. If you don't mind input lag, they're good monitors. Go run a few PixPerAn tests and you'll mind that the motion is really darn good.
What can NEC offer? They offer 3D 14-bit look-up tables, hardware calibration, luminance uniformity compensation (this feature actually works BTW), colour gamut support, wide range of scaling capabilities that aren't broken, workable sRGB emulation modes (a lot of wide gamut monitors can't do this right), etc. Same goes for Eizo, another company that only concerns themselves with the professional and corporate market (I am aware of the Foris, it is as good as many professional monitors). As I said in my reply to that guy, there's no reason to talk about NEC monitors because they're ungodly expensive and offer features no one here is going to use.
Size of company is irrelevant; what you do with the technology is far more important. If you were looking for a high end graphics monitor, you would look at Lacie, Eizo, and NEC. LG has a single good professional monitor and Samsung hasn't been relevant in the professional market for years because S-PVA is god awful for colour accurate work. They recently released PLS, something that performs exactly the same as IPS, only to gimp their monitors by having outrageously bad stock gamma and poor quality control on backlight bleeding; there's no reason to pick it over, say, the Dell Ultrasharp unless you really hate LG's shitty antiglare coating.
Its really cute you think the size of the company means anything. Next you're going to tell me that Volkswagen makes good, reliable cars because they're much larger than smaller auto manufacturers like Subaru and Volvo.
And you're kidding yourself if OLED is going to be relevant in the consumer monitor hardware market any time soon. Its too expensive, has severe issues with lifespan and burn in, and cannot handle the stressful loads monitors need to handle. You might as well buy a Sony FW900 instead of dealing with OLED if you want to have the best motion performance possible.
|
I think you lack reading comprehension.
I said NEC doesn't make any high quality gaming monitors. Learn to read first before you waffle on something that's irrelevant to gaming. Input lag is bad for gaming so your argument is just waffle.
You can go on and on about what NEC has to offer. However at the end of the day, it's not what the PC user (and gamer) wants. I only have one friend who owns a NEC monitor and I saw him game on it and it was awful. The input lag is just too high and games look sluggish as hell. All my other friends own Samsung (by far the most common), LG (2nd most common) and Dell (3rd most common). And what do these 3 companies offer? Quality, efficiency and technological adaptability. If a company isn't going to adapt or exceed today's current technological standards, then it won't be popular and people won't buy them.
I'm not sure what your argument stands for. You said smaller companies lack in the quality control department. NEC is a small company (compared to Samsung and LG). So make up your mind. Do smaller companies really lack in quality control?
http://www.newsday.com/business/technology/samsung-shifts-focus-to-oled-displays-1.3543276
South Korea's Samsung Electronics Co, the world's biggest maker of televisions, is shifting its focus towards new generation OLED display technology, and said it will spin off its loss-making LCD flat-screen business into an affiliate.
The outlook for liquid crystal display TVs has dimmed as shoppers in developed markets have traded in their bulky cathode-ray tube TVs for flat screens, and...
Consumers want thinner displays and more efficient technology. That's what technological advancement is about.
|
5930 Posts
The input lag is just too high and games look sluggish as hell.
Input lag high, yes. Sluggish no. I've got reading comprehension and that's exactly what you said in your first post. If you can't game on a 5ms TN panel that's fine. However these monitors, in practice, are basically just as responsive as 5ms TN monitors, which most people can use fine.
Input lag is high but input lag has nothing to do "games looking sluggish", Input lag measurements are meaningful but they have to be understood under proper context. A lot of gaming enthusiasts can game on U2711s easily enough and that has around 30ms of input lag. No, they're not gaming monitors but they can serve as gaming monitors easily enough due to decently applied overdrive. I've written the OP keeping in mind that everyone is different. I, therefore, haven't stooped down to generalizations like "all TN monitors suck", "LG antiglare is impossible to like", and "input lag under 16ms is a must; if it has more it sucks and can't be used for gaming" and told people to try before buying,
What Samsung and LG offer are cheap monitors that look pretty good. In the United States, Visio is actually the #1 vendor, despite their rather middling output, and the only reason is price. In Dell's case, you get nice warranty and ergonomic features for the price which appeals to a lot of people, myself included.
Technological adaptability? LG and Samsung might make the panels but it doesn't mean they're good at making monitors themselves. LG doesn't make close to the best TVs nor do they make the best monitors; Samsung makes a mean high end TV but the only monitor they make better than anyone else are their 120hz monitors. Just because they *make* the technology doesn't mean they can use it well. I have no idea why you mention Dell because they're operate in a similar manner to Dell, HP, NEC, and Eizo - they're just a guy who buys panels, puts them into monitors, and sells them to the professional market.
Quality? Definitely not, because Samsung has to deal with a class action against them; Dell is infamous for IPS panel roulette (due to LG), defective firmware for early product releases, and backlight bleeding issues (also due to LG); LG's IPS technology is some of the most inconsistent in terms of quality.
Efficiency? What the fuck does that even mean because the power draw of all monitors, that use the same panels, are more or less the same. If you mean how good the monitors are in terms of contrast, colour accuracy, etc. then you'll find that LG makes exactly one monitor that's above the rest and Samsung has a bunch of designs that appear to suffer from heavy backlight bleeding and/or awful colour presets.
I'm not sure what your argument stands for. You said smaller companies lack in the quality control department. NEC is a small company (compared to Samsung and LG). So make up your mind. Do smaller companies really lack in quality control?
Not sure where I ever said that since I'm the guy who said Samsung had just as bad QA as Asus and friends. I am saying that smaller companies are able to do just as much as the larger companies, and sometimes do even more; just because they are big does not mean they're above cutting corners and ensuring every product is built to pitch perfect standards.
Refer to Samsung's PLS monitor situation and the class action against them.
Consumers want thinner displays and more efficient technology. That's what technological advancement is about.
Doesn't mean its better. Unless you are so shallow to believe that aesthetics are more important than contrast, reliability, panel uniformity, etc. Funnily enough the "technological advancement" has graced us with flat screen TVs that are so thin that they commonly suffer from backlight bleeding and clouding issues.
(Efficient generally means power efficiency. If you mean effectiveness, then my bad)
Yes, what consumers want is a TV that is cheap. If its aesthetically pleasing, that's a bonus. That's why Visio is the largest TV vendor in the United States. We're better than the typical consumer, I would think, since we care more than raw price right?
Real technological advancement is about introducing technology that is just better in every way. Sony's Trinitron is a famous example where it was just so much brighter than other colour CRT TVs on the market. That is real advancement, not ways to keep trying to construct technology with larger profit margins and planned obsolescence (the OLED mentioned in your article...we won't know if they're as weak as the OLEDs used in the Galaxy SII until people start using these TVs).
So I also have no idea why you're even bringing up OLED. When Apple decides to use OLED is the day that OLED is safe for desktop usage. It took IPS around 2010-2012 to actually start penetrating into the consumer market. Let's guess on how long its going to take for OLED to actually be an relevant option in the desktop market.
-----------------------------------------
I'll ask a question: can you prove with actual evidence that Samsung/LG/Dell monitors are far better than small vendors? Its a really curious claim and you've never actually really supported it. No, your friends aren't really evidence and neither are consumer satisfaction graphs. For all I know they could be Dell employees or Koreans who refuse to buy anything non-Korean. They might not even exist because this is the internet after all.
My sources will be Prad.de and TFT Central, two very trustworthy computer monitor review sites. They do actual proper reviews of the products - Prad.de actually has a proper industrial oscilloscope to measure input lag. What is yours? Let's be scientific about this now because this argument is stupid.
|
lol I think you burned him. Oh and btw this is just my opinion, Just because a monitor has high input lag doesn't mean its not for gaming. your naked eye isn't going to notice the difference between an image that takes .16 seconds to get on the screen or .13 seconds. When it comes down to it, all that's important is how many pixels per inch their is, how much color it supports and how sharp and detailed it makes the graphics. I've never seen drones so detailed than on my MultiSync PA231W I look at it this way, a monitor is just as important as a video card, the more you spend the better it looks and if your like me and have a NEC, you no damn well your monitor is going to last u 10 years plus.
|
Both 130ms and 160ms input lag would be terrible and noticeable, and maybe distinguishable from each other. However, no modern computer monitors are that bad, just maybe some HDTVs.
I think it's very arguable that for games that require precise timing on the frame (1/60 second at 60 fps), input lag on the order of about 10-20ms could be a factor for some people. I think you would get used to it very quickly and such a difference would be pretty hard to notice by inspection, but your performance would be worse, particularly if you're switching from a CRT or something with very low input lag.
|
I think my VGA monitor EDID got corrupted. Some people suggest solutions that require a second comp but I don't. Does anyone here know how to fix it? or should I just buy a new non-vga monitor? Some solution I found on the internet sounds risky enough that I didn't want to risk my whole system.
|
So I was able to get one of the refurb Samsung S23A750Ds from Tigerdirect. So far, I absolutely love the monitor (granted, I've had a Syncmaster 223CW for the past 4 years, so it's a huge improvement anyway). Blacklight bleeding is minimal, no real lighting issues as far as I can see thus far, though I'm no veteran of reviewing displays by an means. I expected the switch to a glossy panel to be one that would take time but it's really not that noticeable unless staring at a blank screen. However, I have yet to actually calibrate it as I haven't really had the time to fool around with the settings in-depth and have never actually looked into calibration before. Regardless, I feel like it was well worth the money to upgrade at this point in time. =D
|
Wondering if anyone here can give me a hand. Just built a new rig and going dual monitors with it. One of the monitors just won't seem to cooperate with me at all, it has this obnoxious whitish tint to the screen. I've been playing around with the contrast, gamma and RGB, but can't seem to get it to look normal at all. It also doesn't have a 6500k colour temperature option, which is what people automatically tell me to set it to.
You can tell from the picture that the left monitor looks perfect (straight out of the box settings) whereas the right one looks really misty, and is quite straining on the eyes to read things from. I've also done the auto calibrate which didn't help at all. Right now it's set to 75 bright, 65 contrast, 86 red, 80 green 78 blue because some website said it's the apparent equivalent to 6500k, which it evidently isn't. It's a BenQ G925HD
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/AE0OU.jpg)
|
5930 Posts
How do you know the left is perfect? In any case, tinting problems are common in LCD monitors. Either return it or deal with it. There are tons of IPS monitors, for example, that suffer from blue and yellow tinting and you can mess with the RGB level a bit but it'll still always be there.
Proper calibration needs a tool. If you don't have a tool you need to get the exact values for the exact same monitor, which I doubt since this is a bargain bin TN monitor. You cannot substitute monitors like use Dell Ultrasharp values for another similar IPS monitor from another company.
It doesn't help its a low end TN monitor. They're generally awful for just about anything. Even if you use the inbuilt Microsoft display calibrator or lagom.nl, you're probably going to get some pretty awful * curves no matter what you do.
|
On that note, do you think it would be valuable to use the ICC profile for my U2312HMs (Found where you linked in the OP, here)? I've been using them for a month and they look fine to me but maybe they'll be more accurate?
|
5930 Posts
You could try and see what happens - it should be easy to apply and remove. Ultrasharps tend to come out of the factory quite reasonable so there's isn't too much reason to calibrate it.
|
Since I am using three U2312HMs, I am thinking of applying the ICC profile to one of them and then comparing it to another. I think that would be possible under Color Management. Is there a good test for doing that rather than just eyeballing with a couple of the same applications open? Also, should I use the "custom" or "standard" version on that site? The custom seems to have some different RGB values even though it was calibrated with the same device?
|
5930 Posts
Since you don't own his GPU and you're using the same monitor, just use the custom mode and input the values manually into the monitor itself (20 Brightness, 75 Contrast, RGB of 92;88;98). You can use the ICC profile if you think it will help the graphics card push the desired gamma and colour temp but obviously your mileage may vary due to varying desktop systems.
Unfortunately, there's no way to see how "accurate" the monitor is without using a hardware calibration tool of some sort. Eyeballing is the best you're going to get without a Spyder 3 or HueyPro. I wouldn't bother with either calibration tool unless you're dead serious about colour accuracy and/or buy a lot of monitors that may suffer from gamma issues (most VA monitors). IPS monitors typically don't suffer from gamma issues thanks to factory calibration.
|
Okay, I'll try out the OSD values and compare them by eye. I'm definitely not buying a calibrator as I'm not fanatical; simply curious.
One last question though: If the ICC profile depends on the GPU of the tester, and the GPU isn't listed on that page to compare with your own, why would you ever use them? I guess it's sort of the same as taking the OSD values: you're assuming that their calibration is an improvement from your own and that if you use theirs it'll be a little bit closer to "perfect".
|
5930 Posts
That's exactly the reason. In some cases, there isn't much point doing so (Ultrasharps for instance). In many cases where you actually have black crush, changing the gamma to a value that apparently works is 95% better than not doing anything.
If its obvious that the values are dodgy, its easy reversible so there's little harm in trying it out.
|
Thanks for laying this out Womwomwom.
|
Anyone know GSL or MLG monitor?
|
Pretty sure the GSL monitors are the BenQ XL2410.
|
The MLG monitors are almost certainly the BenQ RL2450HT because (I think) I saw commercials for them in the last MLG, and they've been supposedly developed specifically for RTS, "co-developed" with ST Bomber, Ace, and July.
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/news_archive/25.htm#benq_rl2450ht (thanks for calling them Stardale, TFTCentral ...)
|
5930 Posts
MLG monitors in the past, I think, have been those Asus monitors (Asus VH236H?). Its cheap and fairly dependable. Nothing really wrong with it.
BenQ XL2410 sucks, even after the firmware fix, and the BenQ RL2450HT is not worth the $329 its asking for on Amazon. Of course MLG will advertise it since BenQ gives them cash to try convince silly people buy whatever monitors their fav progamers use. Even if GSL and MLG uses them, I would not use them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
