LCD purchase help

I'd kind of like to replace my gateway fhd 2400; ~$800 is my limit (can go a little higher, but preferrably no more than 850 not including shipping), since my parents will buy my fhd2400. For $275.

Here's what I have to have:

no less than 1,000:1 CR

damn-near a-mva black levels. in other words, damn-near crt-blacks.

an ips that doesn't shift colors at all. I would assume I'd need an h-ips, but not sure. preferrably an h-ips or another ips better than super-ips.

model number doesn't include any revised panels, and doesn't include different panels, unless the latest is perfect, and only if i'm guaranteed to get the right panel w/o any difficulty.

a glossy screen, or glass (I assume glass isn't too common)

92% gamut or higher.

1920x1200 or 1080 native res.

8 ms g2g (6 preffered)

preferrably less than 130W or less, a little over is ok if larger than 24 inches.

nothing else matters except if possible component and composite inputs would be nice. hdmi port-only is fine since there's dvi-->hdmi cables.

i'll appreciate any help, although I wouldn't be incredibly surprised if i'm s.o.l.
 
Uh you know the contrast ratio specs on lcds are all lies right? That doesn't tell you anything about the true contrast ratio of the lcd, especially if they alter the backlight based on whats being displayed- dynamic contrast ratio specs can be huge.
Near crt blacks? While crt blacks when there nothing but dark on the screen are far darker than any lcd(!) their ANSI contrast is horrible- if there is a bright section in a scene that is otherwise dark the contrast will be truly horrible- maybe 200:1 and shadow details will be horrible, so I dont quite understand when people want near crt blacks, I'd much rather have blacks that are black with nothing being displayed and stay black with bright sections being displayed. It honestly bugs me more than poor lcd blacks.
You dont necessarily wan't a wide gamut display unless you like oversaturated colors.

When you say 1920x1200 OR 1080 native res do you realize they're mutually exclusive? 1920x1080 native res implies a 16x9 aspect ratio (like widescreen TVs) wherewas 1920x1200, 1680x1050 etc implies 16x10 aspect ratio- only computer displays (and tvs based on said pc/mac lcd panals) include that aspect ratio, which is a compromise between fullscreen and 16x9 widescreen and pc/mac lcds have already started to move over to 16x9 aspect ratios since it's cheaper to make.
Another useless spec for lcds is pixel reponse time, especially grey to grey, the only way to really know is to see for yourself if it ghosts.
As for your model number with no revised panals, well that rules out any DELL lcds, and that's not really a bad thing, they're using TN panals now in their ultrasharp series- tsk tsk.
 
None exist.

You need to look at plasma displays if you want anywhere near those specs, baring the wattage usage.
 
Uh you know the contrast ratio specs on lcds are all lies right? That doesn't tell you anything about the true contrast ratio of the lcd, especially if they alter the backlight based on whats being displayed- dynamic contrast ratio specs can be huge.
Near crt blacks? While crt blacks when there nothing but dark on the screen are far darker than any lcd(!) their ANSI contrast is horrible- if there is a bright section in a scene that is otherwise dark the contrast will be truly horrible- maybe 200:1 and shadow details will be horrible, so I dont quite understand when people want near crt blacks, I'd much rather have blacks that are black with nothing being displayed and stay black with bright sections being displayed. It honestly bugs me more than poor lcd blacks.
You dont necessarily wan't a wide gamut display unless you like oversaturated colors.

When you say 1920x1200 OR 1080 native res do you realize they're mutually exclusive? 1920x1080 native res implies a 16x9 aspect ratio (like widescreen TVs) wherewas 1920x1200, 1680x1050 etc implies 16x10 aspect ratio- only computer displays (and tvs based on said pc/mac lcd panals) include that aspect ratio, which is a compromise between fullscreen and 16x9 widescreen and pc/mac lcds have already started to move over to 16x9 aspect ratios since it's cheaper to make.
Another useless spec for lcds is pixel reponse time, especially grey to grey, the only way to really know is to see for yourself if it ghosts.
As for your model number with no revised panals, well that rules out any DELL lcds, and that's not really a bad thing, they're using TN panals now in their ultrasharp series- tsk tsk.
Yes, I knew the difference between 1080p and 1920x1200, but I thought that benQ released a new desktop lcd lately that was 1080p; they were advertising it was great b/c of no black bars. black bars don't bother me at all, so they're not advertising anything extraordinary to me.

Yes, i knew that dynamic contrast ratios meant shit and that crt blacks aren't perfect.

pixel response time, as you say is irrelevant as long it's not advertised at like 16 ms or higher.

I need at least 92% saturation, since i don't like dv. Some pics look oversaturated, but other than that, 72% isn't too good looking, imo, unless using an ati gpu w/ the saturation turned up a little. Then it still looks unnatural.

Also, I thought that pretty much all lcd's these days are at least 92%, anyway. Or did I think wrong again?

Also, about crt contrast, you're right; they're too dark, and aren't close to perfect.

VA's have better contrast than they do and also better contrast than other lcd panels. The problem i have with getting a high-end va panel is the input response time, at least to me, isn't quite perfect like it is on an ips.

So, which factors should I eliminate? MVA panels are ok, if they have input time equivalent to an ips. Measurably, not just noticeably.

Also, if i get an mva panel, would the glossy screen serve less purpose? That is, would it give better contrast than an ips with a glossy screen and would it be smoother than an ips screen would? My parent's lg l2000c's screen surface looks very rough/kind of grainy.

Finally, do all mva panels have the shifting colors issue in motion? Not viewing angle, but i've heard some ips panels' color shifts purple when the on-screen motion is fast.

Shoot me back a reply when you have time=] Happy holidays to everyone=]
None exist.

You need to look at plasma displays if you want anywhere near those specs, baring the wattage usage.

Plasma tv's run too hot and they suffer from weakening/burn-in.
 
For instance, last years Panasonic Plasma panels are rated to last 100,000 hours, which is about 30 years of regular or 11 years of non-stop usage before the brightness of the display is halved.

Plasma technology has long since solved the issue of image retention.

The new model Panasonic is due out in January / February using 5-lumen technology to drop the power consumption to 250 watts, down from the 320 watts of this years models [PZ85/PZ800U/PZ850U]. Current panels are somewhere around 2 lumens, so the new panels will offer brighter and wider contrast ratios as well as darker darks.
 
Well they do, but only to the extent that modern crts do. Ie if you only ever do, eg, windows work, and never ever turn your screen off, the task bar etc will eventually permenantly leave an imprint.

I don't think anyone does that though...


On blacks, the reason people prefer CRT/plasma blacks, even though technically the bright spots spill over and light up darker areas is that it's still overall far more natural looking. Even the best LCDs are flippin awful at displaying dark scenes when in a room without particularly bright ambient lighting. The whole thing just gets washed out with the dark grey of backlight which worst of all is quite obviously uneven.
 
Bambers, as I said, current plasmas do not suffer from image burn. They may have slight case of image retention, but as soon as you display a different picture, after a short while (under an hour typically) the image retention is gone. They deploy subpixel jittering and other means to prevent it.
 
To say it doesn't exist at all isn't really accurate. Leave a windows desktop on a plasma for 5 years and it'll be burnt in, permenantly, pretty extreme yes but I did rather imply that in my previous post.


But for temporary impressions, LCDs can get those too.
 
Ah, yes, plasma burn only occurs through negligent practices. I thought you were implying it would occur through normal use and care.

I had to deal with "image persistence" on my Dell 2405 LCD. It's a fairly simply process to do. What's needed is to cycle the crystals from completely off to completely on a few thousand times. I created two images of 1920x1200 resolution, one completely white, the other completely black. I placed these in a single directory and set the Windows Live Photo Gallery screen saver to use photos from this directory with the Fade theme and a medium slide show speed. I let this run overnight. In the morning all issues were solved.

What causes it is Liquid Crystals tend to remember their state if left in one state for too long and wont respond to signals telling them to switch state. This memory causes the retained images. Fortunately, cycling them from state to state a multitude of times will remove this effect. The other way of fixing it involves turning the LCD off for days at a time, but it takes too long for my liking.
 
I'd have to ask why go so small? Go with 42" or larger!
 
Heh, as one who uses a ~50" plasma I understand where you are coming from, but desktop setups do have their own set of advantages. I'm actually looking to get a ~24" in the near future too, for a second rig to put back in my old office room, made out of spare parts once I upgrade to an i7 setup and one of the new videocards coming out shortly.
 
I'd kind of like to replace my gateway fhd 2400; ~$800 is my limit (can go a little higher, but preferrably no more than 850 not including shipping), since my parents will buy my fhd2400. For $275.

Here's what I have to have:

no less than 1,000:1 CR

damn-near a-mva black levels. in other words, damn-near crt-blacks.

an ips that doesn't shift colors at all. I would assume I'd need an h-ips, but not sure. preferrably an h-ips or another ips better than super-ips.

model number doesn't include any revised panels, and doesn't include different panels, unless the latest is perfect, and only if i'm guaranteed to get the right panel w/o any difficulty.

a glossy screen, or glass (I assume glass isn't too common)

92% gamut or higher.

1920x1200 or 1080 native res.

8 ms g2g (6 preffered)

preferrably less than 130W or less, a little over is ok if larger than 24 inches.

nothing else matters except if possible component and composite inputs would be nice. hdmi port-only is fine since there's dvi-->hdmi cables.

i'll appreciate any help, although I wouldn't be incredibly surprised if i'm s.o.l.

You want a Ferrari but want to pay Mustang prices? :LOL:

There is a 26" LCD from NEC that meets your specs, but you can only dream about purchasing it.

http://www.necdisplay.com/Products/Product/?product=8899a96d-28dc-484f-a4de-14309a636738

Get back to us when you win the lottery... ;)
 
Just get a 24 inch and call it a day. Either Dell or HP should be fine. I love my 30 inch HP. It is more than awesome :)
 
alright, 2 questions about the alpha ips:

does it have better contrast than desktop ips's generally do? is it possible that its contrast is as good as a VA panel?

is it limited to a 72% gamut, or is it likely higher?

I've tried to find out, but those are 2 things I can't find out, so it would be great if someone could help me out with this=]
 
anyone know?

Also, another question. Is it usual for tn panels like my Gateway FHD 2400 to have severe sparkling/twinkling with dark colors, and probably every shade of blue?

Any and all answers will be appreciated=]
 
Honestly, other than Image Editing, I don't really need anything greater than a 72% gamut. Games, movies, etc. look virtually the same. At least to me. :) Maybe with a side by side and much pausing and squinting I can pick out the differences, but meh...

However, when editing images (photo's, etc.) a 92% or better is certainly nicer when trying to match the output of a production still.

Odd considering how the littlest aliasing in a scene will glare out at me, yet subtle differences in the display of colors don't. Although as said, side by side comparisons tend to be more noticable to one degree or another.

Maybe one of the benefits of being slightly red/green color blind. :)

Regards,
SB
 
Honestly, other than Image Editing, I don't really need anything greater than a 72% gamut. Games, movies, etc. look virtually the same. At least to me. :) Maybe with a side by side and much pausing and squinting I can pick out the differences, but meh...

However, when editing images (photo's, etc.) a 92% or better is certainly nicer when trying to match the output of a production still.

Odd considering how the littlest aliasing in a scene will glare out at me, yet subtle differences in the display of colors don't. Although as said, side by side comparisons tend to be more noticable to one degree or another.

Maybe one of the benefits of being slightly red/green color blind. :)

Regards,
SB
Thanks, but displays w/ less than 92% gamut have shitty saturation, regardless of saturation, imo.

So, does anyone know what the gamut of alpha ips panels are?
 
Back
Top