Need advice on buying a new monitor

[Mephesto]

I'm currently using a cheap ACER LCD monitor that heats up pretty good. Among the 101 issues an LCD monitor has, I'm fortunate enough to have one that doesn't distort color upon angle viewing, though the corners have illumination problems during dark scenes in full screen movies, something alleviated by increasing gamma.

Anyway, anyone know of a monitor on the market that might quit burning my face? I also have good reason to believe it is the monitor itself and not just the computer that contributes to my room being unusually warm during winter that I don't even need to turn on heating.

I kept anticipating and hearing promises of OLED monitors becoming mainstream by 2010 and now I'm hearing Sony is abandoning this technology for another one. Now all I see is scattered display technologies with no sign of any real effort to overhaul these faulty piece of shit LCD monitors.

My CRT monitor was awesome, cool and way more power efficient. The idea that LCD monitors are more "green" than CRTs is complete rodent shit. My LCD monitor is at a constant 35W regardless of the content (duh, it's a bright backlight that polarizes crystals. Technically, an LCD is always displaying white.)

My CRT monitor uses 15-35W depending on the content. The brighter the more power-hungry.

So yeah, anyone got any educated suggestions on a good, new robust monitor?

[jman98]

I've been using Samsung but as your post strikes me as partly exaggeration and partly a case of you failing to recognize that you're one of those incredibly fussy people, I think you're going to need another incredibly fussy fault finding type of person to give you advice here. Honestly most human beings do not give a crap about some of the issues you are concerned with. That is not a knock on you, but just a statement of how things are. I do not personally know one single person who has ever complained about "black levels" (not in your post, yet many here constantly harp about it) or illumination problems in the corners, yet I do recognize that this is just a super big deal to SOME people. Personally I don't look at CRT monitors with fondness. Those bitches were heavy and cumbersome and LCD technology is good enough for me. I've never had the heat issues you describe either.

The industry always overhypes expensive new technology in the hopes that gullible consumers will catch on and buy enough to make it start to gain momentum. Unless they can drive the price down pretty quickly, I think OLED is already dead. I know that many people here get all excited talking about the glories of plasma, but LCD won because it was "good enough" for most people. Similar fates will meet LCD replacement technologies unless they can deliver equivalent or better quality for the same or a lower price than LCD.

For a fussy guy, you are not really providing a lot of helpful info. You might consider posting what size of monitor you desire and if you have any unusual requirements (ie. must do 3D, must support bleeding edge games, etc.) that would influence what is recommended. We've got some fussy people here and I'm sure one of them can suggest something that would make you less unhappy.

[aedipuss]

samsung is decent quality for the money. my workstation uses a 24" led-lcd 2ms samsung and a 24" led-ips 5ms lg for slightly better color. if i could only have one i'd go with the samsung for a general purpose monitor. neither led monitor puts off any noticeable heat nor uses much energy and after calibrating both are pretty nice.

[usually_quiet]

Go to a showroom and look at some LCD display models to see if any are acceptable, because there is nothing else in the way of consumer monitors. LED backlighting generates less heat than fluorescent backlighting and IPS panels offer the widest viewing angle. The viewing angle for TN panels is narrower, but TN panels can have a faster response time than IPS.

[aedipuss]

for the truly picky.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001565&nm_mc=EMC-IGNEFL061912..._-24001565-L0E

[hello_hello]

While everyone was falling over themselves to replace their CRT monitors with LCDs I was buying 22" Trinitron CRTs in perfect condition for next to nothing. There's two connected to this PC and I have a couple more in storage.

CRT monitors do get warm. My cat is sleeping in one of her favorite spots at the moment, on top of the monitor I'm using to view this page. She likes the heat. CRT monitors rely on convection cooling. If I place my hand underneath a 22" CRT monitor, some days I can feel the air flow past it as though there's a fan inside the monitor sucking it in. LCDs do get warm, but I doubt the average LCD would get that hot.

I've seen quite a few LCDs with horrible contrast ratios and black levels. Mainly of the cheap PC monitor variety, but I've seen a few cheap LCD TVs which aren't much better. You don't have to be particularly fussy to realize some LCDs, especially older, cheaper models, might be okay for displaying text or viewing web pages etc but when it comes to displaying video they're some variation of crap.

Sorry I can't offer suggestions for a replacement LCD monitor, as I hope to live out my days having never owned one. If it's any consolation, I'm pretty sure my Plasma TV runs warmer than the average LCD too.

[Mephesto]

I've been using Samsung but as your post strikes me as partly exaggeration and partly a case of you failing to recognize that you're one of those incredibly fussy people, I think you're going to need another incredibly fussy fault finding type of person to give you advice here. Honestly most human beings do not give a crap about some of the issues you are concerned with. That is not a knock on you, but just a statement of how things are. I do not personally know one single person who has ever complained about "black levels" (not in your post, yet many here constantly harp about it) or illumination problems in the corners, yet I do recognize that this is just a super big deal to SOME people. Personally I don't look at CRT monitors with fondness. Those bitches were heavy and cumbersome and LCD technology is good enough for me. I've never had the heat issues you describe either.

Wow... you've gotta be kidding me, Fabio. Since day one I've listened to demented permavirgins complain about a single speck of artifacts on their precious, fugly anime videos and watch them nerdrage whenever someone releases a torrent that doesn't take day after ******* day to complete.

I personally always went after the highly-compressed rips because I was sensible enough to not give a shit about barely-noticeable differences that take a couple times more bitrate to fix.

Now people are telling me I'M the one who's fussy about video quality? **** you, buddy. When I got this monitor and made my first switch from my old CRT, the quality sucked so bad that it inflated all the video compression defects that were previously unnoticeable on the CRT. I even began to understand why so many people wantonly bitched about seemingly-minuscule reductions in quality. The enlighten finally hit me: they were all using defective displays with low contrast ratios.

I'm not a fussy guy, but I do expect displays to display properly. And I guarantee you people DO give a damn about LCD's serious defects, they just more or less got accustomed to it. CRTs have dropped mass-manufacture for almost a decade now.

I remember in the beginning the famous motion-blurring problem. Now I don't even notice it. Frankly I think I've lost touch and can't tell a defect from an improvement anymore as it's plausible I've gotten used to most of the problems, and I have a CHEAP monitor that I got in a bundle from wal-mart (it uses VGA cable.) Brand new PC package, all essentials included for only $500.

Trust me I'm not fussy. I'm well aware I could do much worse, which is why I was asking for educated advice.

The industry always overhypes expensive new technology in the hopes that gullible consumers will catch on and buy enough to make it start to gain momentum.

I'm not sure about that. I've been anxiously following the technology since about 2002 back when it was called LEP. If anything, it's not overhyped enough. I'd do anything for a monitor that is both ultra-light AND million-to-one contrast ratio and response. I heard they die very quick though.

Unless they can drive the price down pretty quickly, I think OLED is already dead. I know that many people here get all excited talking about the glories of plasma, but LCD won because it was "good enough" for most people. Similar fates will meet LCD replacement technologies unless they can deliver equivalent or better quality for the same or a lower price than LCD.

It won because Plasma was a shitty alternative. It suffers from burn-in, is very power hungry and gets really hot. I wouldn't be turning that thing on in my room, especially in the summer.

For a fussy guy, you are not really providing a lot of helpful info. You might consider posting what size of monitor you desire and if you have any unusual requirements (ie. must do 3D, must support bleeding edge games, etc.) that would influence what is recommended. We've got some fussy people here and I'm sure one of them can suggest something that would make you less unhappy.

I don't have a tape measure but I think my current one is 21inch and 1440x900. Personally, I'm not sure if I even want a 1920x1080 display, a fear of change kicks in when I try to imagine tinier text and icons.

But mostly, I would be happy if there could be a monitor as good as this one without heating up my damn face so much. I say that because I know I couldn't get any better quality with any other LCD monitor but wouldn't mind less heat.

Btw, is there any tool that dumps all technical info of your monitor like CPU-Z? I'll gladly post it.

[lordsmurf]

Accurate displays are not "bright and colorful".
-- If you want accuracy, get a 23" ViewSonic IPS LED panel for $300 from Amazon.
-- If you want bright and colorful, go to Best Buy or Walmart, and pick something off the shelf.

The ViewSonic runs cool.

1920x1080 does make tinier icons, but at 23-24", it's not a real issue.

CRT isn't better than LCD. It fully depends on the quality of the display.
My calibrated IPS LCDs will easily outdo most/all consumer CRTs.

LCDs are easily more energy efficient than CRTs. But there's a lot of junky cheap LCDs out there.

[hello_hello]

When I got this monitor and made my first switch from my old CRT, the quality sucked so bad that it inflated all the video compression defects that were previously unnoticeable on the CRT. I even began to understand why so many people wantonly bitched about seemingly-minuscule reductions in quality. The enlighten finally hit me: they were all using defective displays with low contrast ratios.

Maybe displays with low contrast ratios, or maybe a combination of low contrast ratios and not sending the monitor video using the correct levels. If you send a PC monitor which expects full range levels, video which uses standard TV levels (which all video does), black will look dark grey and the video will appear "washed out". Somewhere in the playback chain video needs to be expanded from TV levels to PC levels. If the video player or renderer aren't doing it automatically, you should be able to tell the video card to do it.

It won because Plasma was a shitty alternative. It suffers from burn-in, is very power hungry and gets really hot. I wouldn't be turning that thing on in my room, especially in the summer.

Hmmmmm..... In the early days, LCD was the shitty alternative. LCDs didn't overtake Plasmas in sales until around 2007. Until then LCDs were playing catch-up. I wonder why there's always been such fuss regarding LCD response times, refresh rates, contrast ratios, viewing angles etc. etc. and not so much when it comes to Plasmas if Plasmas were the shitty alternative?
There's lots of reasons why one type of product may win out over another and often it doesn't directly relate to quality. Usually it comes down to price, or if not, it'll be the price. In the early days (and still today) Plasma TVs didn't come in small sizes as they're not cost effective to produce. When it came to full high definition in smaller, more affordable sizes, LCD TVs were really the only option. More LCD TVs were sold, LCD manufacturing became more efficient, the technology was continually "improved", LCD prices continued to drop etc. etc.
Now TV prices have dropped enough for larger TVs to become affordable, I don't think Plasma will go away in a hurry. Not unless LCD eventually becomes too cheap for Plasma to compete. Plasma still generally offers more screen real-estate for a similar price in larger screen sizes.

Plasma TVs don't produce anywhere near as much heat as they used to. I have a 51" Plasma in my bedroom and it doesn't get hot enough for it to be an issue. Plasma TVs don't suffer from burn in as easily as they once did. Yes it's still something to be wary of but nothing I actually worry about.

[sanlyn]

I'm currently using a cheap ACER LCD monitor
....
So yeah, anyone got any educated suggestions on a good, new robust monitor?

Cheap Acer? No wonder you're upset. Acer does make some better ones, but not cheap.

Anyway, I'm pretty fussy and despite many comments here and elsewhere to the contrary, I've never thought an LCD was as "good" as a first-rate CRT in several matters. That aside, the first move you should make is to run as far and as fast as possible from any and all Best-Buy and other big box outlets.

I'm using 21.5" IPS monitors from LG and HP, both calibrated with XRite software and EyeOne Display 2 colorimeters. There are more IPS's and other display types coming up all the time that run circles around TFT's, and prices are getting better quickly.

This is how most non-millionaire enthusiasts calibrate their monitors: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/eye_one_display2.htm
This page will keep you looking and learning for a long time: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews.htm . Lots of other stuff on this site. Check the left-hand contents panel.

Regardless of the brand or type of consumer-level or semi-pro panel you use, they are all crap out of the box and impossible to adjust properly without the right tools.

[lordsmurf]

If you're using it for video, also calibrate against Avia.

The other calibrators like X-Rite are geared at photography.

So run both, and adjust accordingly. Find a middle ground.

[jagabo]

My cheap 23" AOC CFL/LCD monitor consumes 26 watts when running. My wife's 23" LED/LCD monitor consumes 21 watts. An old 16" Viewsonic CRT consumes 56 watts. Measured at the wall with a Kill-a-watt, with the Windows Desktop being displayed. None of these numbers is out of the ordinary in my experience.

[sanlyn]

If you're using it for video, also calibrate against Avia.

The other calibrators like X-Rite are geared at photography.

I could be wrong, but this is my understanding:

Avia won't build a graphics card loookup table or an .icm profile. XRite uses a colorimeter and builds an sRGB profile. Using Xrite's own software, an sRGB monitor will not display some NTSC/PAL colors correctly; the CIE values and conversion matrices for sRGB and the NTSC/PAL patches in Avia don't behave in the same way. You can tweak the XRite calibration using a colorimeter and HCFR software running on a laptop but you'll get out-of-scale readings using the NTSC or PAL CIE charts and test patches. You'd have to configure HCFR for sRGB. XRite calibrates the monitor for overall contrast/brightness/color temp using 100% RGB test patches, then works with the graphics card for 18 primary, secondary, and tertiary colors, including delta-y corrections at three IRE levels. You can see what your sRGB images will look like on tv by viewing images in Photoshop, PaintShopPro, Premiere Pro, After Effects, TMPGenc Editor's preview, and a few other apps that hook into your monitor's .icm profile. XRite also has a utility for nominally checking error levels of the EyeOne colorimeter, which will change about every 2 years. By then, it's time for a new colorimeter. The EyeOne Display 2 colorimeter has an average error of less than 2% and is more accurate than most consumer-level colorimeters below RGB 40 and far more accurate on y-luma readings than its competitors. XRite uses different procedures for LCD's -vs - CRT's. You can calibrate a plasma tv with it and HCFR, but it's oversenstive to red saturation; in that case, you have to use 75% green to set basic CIE saturation and purity levels for primaries and secondaries, and work from there.

To get greater accuracy or use a different colorspace, you need a studio monitor with some really sophisticated color controls, far more advanced than those on consumer monitors, and pro hardware/software.

To say that XRite is only for photography doesn't seem correct to me. It's for sRGB, whether you're looking at photos or video. An sRGB consumer monitor can't be correctly calibrated for NTSC/PAL, which is what Avia is designed for.

[lordsmurf]

While your analysis is sound on the theory, in practice it doesn't always work that way.

I want the monitor calibrated for TV values, not for computer values. The target of the work is, after all, TVs. Therefore I run a color squid first, then tweak against Avia, and it's done side-by-side with a copy of the disc running on a CRT in the same room as a constant (remove variables).

If your curves are all wonky after tweaking in Avia, then the LCD monitor is likely not very good.

The squid works best for photos, but gives a somewhat dingy image due to overall brightness and gamma values. And you still have to calibrate the printer.

[sanlyn]

I want the monitor calibrated for TV values, not for computer values. The target of the work is, after all, TVs. Therefore I run a color squid first, then tweak against Avia, and it's done side-by-side with a copy of the disc running on a CRT in the same room as a constant (remove variables).

Oh, I see what you mean: Use a colorimeter to get the RGB grayscale straight, then tweak with Avia for TV. No argument there, but I just tell XRite to set gamma lower than 2.2 -- that may be why you say your PC looks more "dingy" than your TV. I don't have that problem when I set XRite for 1.8 gamma, which on a PC is a closer match for the way NTSC displays. Effectively that seems to be what you're doing with Avia.

The two color space differences have less to do with nominal RGB values than with gamma and luminance values. Some PC calibration packages default to 2.2 with no choice, which really is too "dim" for a PC whether for video or photo. Most people I know or read about will set a gamma of 2.0 or 1.8, even with a Mac. That more closely matches the PC luminance curve with the TV's. It also sets a bit higher black level to match the restricted contrast and saturation of print media.

If your curves are all wonky after tweaking in Avia, then the LCD monitor is likely not very good.

All the PC monitors I use now, and all that I've been adjusting or seen adjusted with colorimeters by friends and hobbyists for the past couple of years, are 8-bit, 10-bit and mostly newer 6-bit dithered IPS displays from Viewsonic, NEC, Eizo. HP, and LG (the outfit that makes display panels for the other guys). I didn't know you held those names in ill regard, as you've recommended Viewsonic for some time and the new upscale LG's recently. I can see why many have given up on Samsung, Apple, and Dell's front panel lottery. I admit, no one I know has a $5000-plus studio monitor (except for one NEC and an old Iiyama) that can display multiple color spaces.

Yes, I've seen monitors that couldn't be adjusted to any standard, period. And graphics cards that disregard .icm profiles.

The squid works best for photos, but gives a somewhat dingy image due to overall brightness and gamma values. And you still have to calibrate the printer.

2.2 gamma makes photos look just as dim. In any case, RGB middle gray is 128-128-128, whether from photo or video. The idea behind the colorimeter is that if your source asks for RGB-128 or RGB 64, that's what a graphics card, monitor or TV should deliver.

Printer calibration has nothing to do with video. IMO consumer video calibration vendors who claim their colorimeter can calibrate printers are selling snake oil. The XRite package does have print test patterns for adjustment. But the printer has to have something more than the most basic image controls to make use of the patterns.

In any event, folks . . .I think LS would agree with this advice for the O.P., which is what he/she is likely asking for:

I'd recommend that you leave cheap LCD's behind and look for a good big-brand monitor. Check the reviews (but stay away from CNET). Avoid LED if you can, but some LED's offer good screen uniformity; they all differ in that regard. A "good" choice will cost between $200-$400 depending on size. You can spend more. Today's IPS panels are generally good values and run circles around TFT panels, but there are other choices. Look for the brands mentioned above. Ignore contrast ratios printed in the ads; they have nothing to do with real-world performance (if you looked at two objects having a 50,000:1 contrast ratio, your eyes would melt). Don't put much trust in showroom displays. Those images are engineered to hide problems, and many of them are not set up properly anyway.

No monitor offers optimal performance at factory settings. Adjusting any display by eye is haphazard, if not nearly impossible. A calibration disc alone is better than nothing, but they're no match for a colorimeter and software package. I'd recommend packages that use the EyeOne Display from several vendors, including Xrite and LaCie. They're not the very cheapest. You could spend more, but they're good value compared to $1000 pro gear. You could spend less, too, and you'll get less.

[Mephesto]

So LCD monitors with LED backlights consume less energy and dissipate less heat? The problem as I see it is that the backlight (a bright white) must always be on for the liquid crystals to actually be illuminated so the power consumption is constant rather than brightness-dependent like a good CRT.

If they don't all use LED backlights, what do they use?

Also, here's my monitor info. How does it compare to most monitors? Would you consider it to suck capital ass or should I be grateful I got it cheap. There's no possible way to know its price since I got it in a bundle but it sells on eBay for about $100.

[ Acer AL1916W ]

Monitor Properties:
Monitor Name Acer AL1916W
Monitor ID ACRAD80
Model AL1916W
Monitor Type 19" LCD (WXGA+)
Max. Visible Display Size 41 cm x 26 cm (19.1")
Picture Aspect Ratio 16:10
Brightness 300 cd/m2
Contrast Ratio 700:1
Viewing Angles 150/130°
Input Connectors DSub
Horizontal Frequency 31 - 84 kHz
Vertical Frequency 56 - 76 Hz
Maximum Pixel Clock 140 MHz
Maximum Resolution 1440 x 900
Gamma 2.20
DPMS Mode Support Standby, Suspend, Active-Off

Supported Video Modes:
640 x 480 76 Hz
800 x 480 76 Hz
800 x 600 76 Hz
1024 x 600 76 Hz
1024 x 768 76 Hz
1152 x 864 76 Hz
1280 x 720 76 Hz
1280 x 768 76 Hz
1280 x 800 76 Hz
1366 x 768 76 Hz
1440 x 900 76 Hz

[usually_quiet]

If they don't all use LED backlights, what do they use?

Cold cathode fluorescent lighting.

[jagabo]

So LCD monitors with LED backlights consume less energy and dissipate less heat?

Yes. Less than CRT and less than CFL backlit LCD -- of the same size. You can't compare a 60" LED LCD TV to a 13" CRT.

The problem as I see it is that the backlight (a bright white) must always be on for the liquid crystals to actually be illuminated so the power consumption is constant rather than brightness-dependent like a good CRT.

Some back lit LED LCD monitors support local dimming to reduce black levels and power draw. But even without that an LED LCD will have a lower power draw than a CRT (the high voltage electronics in a CRT require quite a lot of power even with a black picture).

If they don't all use LED backlights, what do they use?

CFL.

[Mephesto]

Jagabo, modern CRTs are better designed and only take up about 5W on black and 35-40 on fully white. The LCD that I have draws 35W constantly regardless of the content, though I guess as of 2012 they have much improved LCD technology.

[sanlyn]

I don't think you can compare a cut-corners $100 LCD with more upscale units, as far as power use goes. It appears that you already have what you want and like, so discussing newer gear seems moot. You don't need a $500 LCD to save power watching a black screen, you can do that with what you own. I guess you realize that when watching a black screen you can save even more energy by powering-off.

It's difficult to make recommendations because you haven't specified what you're looking for, except that you want something "new" and something "robust (??)". I don't know how robust the three suggestions below might be, as I don't know what you mean by that term, but I do know these three are proven performers and are very popular with pros and semi-pros alike. You haven't mentioned anything about color gamut, fidelity to the color gamut in use, contrast stability, black level performance, panel uniformity, motion responsiveness, ability to respond properly to hardware/software calibration, etc. One thing I would suggest is to avoid reviews from Amazon, Newegg, BestBuy, CNET, and the like, and try to find more detailed info other than specs printed on the box or in ads. I'd also suggest that it would be difficult to reach any conclusions by looking at in-store displays: almost all showroom displays are clever gimmicks designed to deceive.

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/nec_p241w.htm
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/nec_p241w.htm
or if you want something directed at an even higher "pro" level:
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/nec_spectraview_reference_271.htm

The links are in the UK, but the same models are sold in the US/Canada and elsewhere. I doubt any of them are sold at BestBuy, but it won't hurt to check.

[Mephesto]

I don't think you can compare a cut-corners $100 LCD with more upscale units, as far as power use goes. It appears that you already have what you want and like, so discussing newer gear seems moot. You don't need a $500 LCD to save power watching a black screen, you can do that with what you own. I guess you realize that when watching a black screen you can save even more energy by powering-off.

I expected a better repertoire from the guy who wrote that really long and informative post about LCD monitors. You of all people should understand my grievance with this faulty display technology.

I use a black background and white text. This makes it far easier on the eyes. I can only assume why so many people bitch about displays being detrimental to your eyesight. It definitely is ******* detrimental if you're staring into eye-violating artificial sunlight background.

It's difficult to make recommendations because you haven't specified what you're looking for, except that you want something "new" and something "robust (??)". I don't know how robust the three suggestions below might be, as I don't know what you mean by that term, but I do know these three are proven performers and are very popular with pros and semi-pros alike.

By robust I mean something very difficult to obsolete, something that'll last a while. I specified I was looking for a monitor just as good or better than the one I have now that doesn't draw so much power or heat my face up. I posted the specs.

Those suggestions you gave use the dreaded cold-cathode backlight you warned me about earlier.

You haven't mentioned anything about color gamut, fidelity to the color gamut in use, contrast stability, black level performance, panel uniformity, motion responsiveness, ability to respond properly to hardware/software calibration, etc. One thing I would suggest is to avoid reviews from Amazon, Newegg, BestBuy, CNET, and the like, and try to find more detailed info other than specs printed on the box or in ads. I'd also suggest that it would be difficult to reach any conclusions by looking at in-store displays: almost all showroom displays are clever gimmicks designed to deceive.

I'm not too adept with display technologies, so I don't really know what to look for beyond the basics. I do not want too large a screen or resolution though. With too high a resolution, the icons and text get way too tiny and some detail becomes undiscernable. With too big of a screen, it exceeds the human viewing angle and forces me to swerve my head around, not to mention that LCD screens are known to get saturated on an angle and this 19" one is bad enough as it is in that department.

Are there 1080p screens that are only like 22"?

It's possible I'm just being change-resistant. I never intended to use a widescreen monitor in the beginning but because this LCD monitor that I got 4 years ago came in a bundled package, I was forced to make use of what I had, and it turned out to not be so bad. If I had a choice, I would've bought a 4:3 LCD monitor at the time, because I like to see everything on the screen without swerving my head around. And I don't really have to with this 1440x900 monitor, though the far edges certainly are in the peripheral vision and it's definitely annoying when it comes to old 4:3 games that are unnaturally stretched to fit this widescreen resolution (something that even after 4 years I don't cease to find annoying).

I don't know.

My sudden lack of enthusiasm is attributed to me losing my job a few days ago after only having it for a week, so I really can't spend money now. Can't wait to get the **** out of this North American shithole.

I'll have to re-visit this thread later.

I'm still open to suggestions though. Should I just put up with this one for now and wait for OLED or any other successor to LCD to arrive?

[sanlyn]

I don't think you can compare a cut-corners $100 LCD with more upscale units, as far as power use goes. It appears that you already have what you want and like, so discussing newer gear seems moot. You don't need a $500 LCD to save power watching a black screen, you can do that with what you own. I guess you realize that when watching a black screen you can save even more energy by powering-off.

I expected a better repertoire from the guy who wrote that really long and informative post about LCD monitors. You of all people should understand my grievance with this faulty display technology.

I do understand it. Maybe I should have posted a smiley after that first paragraph.

I use a black background and white text. This makes it far easier on the eyes. I can only assume why so many people bitch about displays being detrimental to your eyesight. It definitely is ******* detrimental if you're staring into eye-violating artificial sunlight background.

Ah. That tells us more about your requirements. It might have been a good idea to read deeper into the test results. As most people are uninformed about monitors anyway, they're always playing theirs at 350 cd/m2 and pumping up the contrast to juice up their empty, FX-sated lives. The recommended range for most calibration packages is 100-120 cd/m2. IPS panels are easier on your eyes, and high contrast objects don't look burned up.

By robust I mean something very difficult to obsolete, something that'll last a while. I specified I was looking for a monitor just as good or better than the one I have now that doesn't draw so much power or heat my face up. I posted the specs.

Last a while? When is the last time you saw that happen in today's technological environment? I see your Acer is capable of 300 cd/m2. That's 300% brighter than most enthusiasts or graphics artists would use. Gamers would like it, though.

Those suggestions you gave use the dreaded cold-cathode backlight you warned me about earlier.

I don't recall warning you about that, but two of those models are LED panels. All three are noted for overall viewing comfort and freedom from glare and hot spots, not to mention blacks that rival CRT's. You're looking at uncalibrated low-budget low-performance LCD and telling me how terrible those upscale models are that you've never seen.

I'm not too adept with display technologies, so I don't really know what to look for beyond the basics. I do not want too large a screen or resolution though. With too high a resolution, the icons and text get way too tiny and some detail becomes undiscernable. With too big of a screen, it exceeds the human viewing angle and forces me to swerve my head around, not to mention that LCD screens are known to get saturated on an angle and this 19" one is bad enough as it is in that department.

Are there 1080p screens that are only like 22"?

Yes. And true HD, as well. Again, you're comparing a cheapo LCD with far better ones, without having seen the competition. I'm using my slightly smaller monitor now, a 21.5" IPS that clearly shows fonts down to some of the silly 3.5-point "legal cautions" seen on many websites, and I can see it clearly. I'm also amazed at how the blacks look on this screen: deep, smooth, dead-calm, dead-sure, dead-black blacks, with plenty of shadow detail just above that level. You don't know what you're missing. Your "saturation at angles" comment says that you don't know what IPS panels are, nor did you notice what one of their best-known performance features is.

It's possible I'm just being change-resistant. I never intended to use a widescreen monitor in the beginning but because this LCD monitor that I got 4 years ago came in a bundled package, I was forced to make use of what I had, and it turned out to not be so bad. If I had a choice, I would've bought a 4:3 LCD monitor at the time, because I like to see everything on the screen without swerving my head around. And I don't really have to with this 1440x900 monitor, though the far edges certainly are in the peripheral vision and it's definitely annoying when it comes to old 4:3 games that are unnaturally stretched to fit this widescreen resolution (something that even after 4 years I don't cease to find annoying).

Stretched? Peripheral viewing problems? Say, how far back does your equipment go? The monitor I'm using right now doesn't have those problems, and the $85 graphics card it's hooked to was made in 2004.

My sudden lack of enthusiasm is attributed to me losing my job a few days ago after only having it for a week, so I really can't spend money now. Can't wait to get the **** out of this North American shithole.

I'll have to re-visit this thread later.

I'm still open to suggestions though. Should I just put up with this one for now and wait for OLED or any other successor to LCD to arrive?

Losing a job can definitely slap the quietus on one's enthusiasm for anything, period. I've been there myself (5 times between 1994-1999). When I wasn't job hunting, I was studying a lot. When you have some time on your hands, you might check deeper into the test site provided. Had you browsed the tft site a bit, you could get quite an education - not an engineering degree, but you'd learn enough to stay away from BestBuy. There are other testing sites mostly non-English in Germany and Italy, but not in gadget-crazy North America where supernova-level brightness, in-your-face oversaturation and lots of toys to click are the sole marketing strategy.

Why wait for OLED? Once it arrives, it'll be passe by the time you walk out of the store with one. Given the $$$ situation, you might as well stand pat. Meanwhile, try looking a little deeper. From what you say, there are many changes in monitors that are passing you by. If nothing else, you'll have some time to catch up.

[usually_quiet]

I use a black background and white text. This makes it far easier on the eyes. I can only assume why so many people bitch about displays being detrimental to your eyesight. It definitely is ******* detrimental if you're staring into eye-violating artificial sunlight background.

My 2-year old Samsung monitor has a "Text" setting that dims the back light, as well as a brightness control.

The vast majority of computer users prefer black (or dark gray) text on a light gray background. White text on a black background was common on the monochrome CRT displays used back in the 1980's and early 1990's. If most people wanted white letters on a black background, it wouldn't have changed, and trust me, staring at a monitor all day long caused eyestrain and other vision problems back then too. (They were the result of staring at a fixed distance for long periods of time and your eyes trying to adjust screen flicker.)

I'm not too adept with display technologies, so I don't really know what to look for beyond the basics. I do not want too large a screen or resolution though. With too high a resolution, the icons and text get way too tiny and some detail becomes undiscernable. With too big of a screen, it exceeds the human viewing angle and forces me to swerve my head around, not to mention that LCD screens are known to get saturated on an angle and this 19" one is bad enough as it is in that department.

Are there 1080p screens that are only like 22"?

I have a 1920x1080 21.5" LCD monitor. That is about the smallest size screen for that resolution. Icons and text size can can often be increased. I have done that, but low-resolution Icons do look like crap. I sit at just beyond arms length from the screen. I don't have to move my head from side to side, just my eyes. Unlike sanlyn, I went to the showroom, saw the monitors for myself, and made certain it was possible to adjust the brightness and contrast enough for my own comfort and viewing pleasure.

Shopping is one thing, but you should probably wait until you get a new job to buy. In any case OLED screens or other alternative technologies for small consumer monitors are a long way off.

[sanlyn]

Unlike sanlyn, I went to the showroom, saw the monitors for myself, and made certain it was possible to adjust the brightness and contrast enough for my own comfort and viewing pleasure.

What? I've definitely been in showrooms. Font display is one thing, but if you're purpose is more critical a showroom is a waste of time.

[usually_quiet]

I'm using 21.5" IPS monitors from LG and HP, both calibrated with XRite software and EyeOne Display 2 colorimeters. There are more IPS's and other display types coming up all the time that run circles around TFT's, and prices are getting better quickly.

This is how most non-millionaire enthusiasts calibrate their monitors: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/eye_one_display2.htm
This page will keep you looking and learning for a long time: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews.htm . Lots of other stuff on this site. Check the left-hand contents panel.

Regardless of the brand or type of consumer-level or semi-pro panel you use, they are all crap out of the box and impossible to adjust properly without the right tools.

It is worthwhile to spend hundreds (maybe more) on equipment or professional services to calibrate a monitor that will be used for pro video or pro photography where color accuracy is essential. However doing the same for a regular home PC monitor for general purpose use by an average person is a waste of money. Perfect color accuracy isn't needed for reading text and web browsing. I use tinted computer glasses when working at the computer for long periods of time, so it is even more of a needless expense in my case. (The glasses help prevent computer vision syndrome and reduce exposure to UV radiation. Both CRTs and non-LED LCD screens emit some UV radiation.)

IPS (In-Plane Switching) panes are TFT (Thin-Film Transistor) panels, and so are TN (Twisted Nematic) panels.Every type of panel has its strengths and weaknesses. TN panels don't provide the same color range as IPS panels, but they are less expensive and often have a better refresh rate. A faster refresh rate means better performance when playing video games or watching video with a lot of rapid motion. Since you appear to respect tftcentral, you might want to read its section on panel technologies http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/panel_technologies.htm

[sanlyn]

I agree, each panel type has its points, pro and con. I've read that article, and it comes down to me getting better results from a calibrated IPS display -- especially when I'm comparing color and levels correction on 2 or 3 different versions of the same frames spread across the screen. If you prefer TN/TFT panels, go for it. I can't work on 'em.

It is worthwhile to spend hundreds (maybe more) on equipment or professional services to calibrate a monitor that will be used for pro video or pro photography where color accuracy is essential. However doing the same for a regular home PC monitor for general purpose use by an average person is a waste of money.

For general use, and from the way I see most video "restorals" posted here and elsewhere, I'd agree. Most users either don't care, can't see the difference, or won't bother. That's obvious from much of the "restoral" work I see posted here and elsewhere. I can introduce you to some photographers and a couple of video hobbyists who'd disagree with you on this. Can't tell you how much trouble and re-work I've saved after calibrating my gear. But that's my own choice. Others can do whatever they want.

[usually_quiet]

I agree, each panel type has its points, pro and con. I've read that article, and it comes down to me getting better results from a calibrated IPS display -- especially when I'm comparing color and levels correction on 2 or 3 different versions of the same frames spread across the screen. If you prefer TN/TFT panels, go for it. I can't work on 'em.

You may have looked at the article but since you continue to confuse "TN" and "TFT" and apparently think that IPS isn't a TFT technology, you still don't understand what you read.

[sanlyn]

Allow me to fix that typo. There are TN, TFT and IPS-TFT. IPS is a type of TFT panel. Sorry. Careless.

[aedipuss]

Allow me to fix that typo. There are TN, TFT and IPS-TFT. IPS is a type of TFT panel. Sorry. Careless.

closer. tn and ips are both types of tft panel technology.

[sanlyn]

Sigh. Thanks for setting that matter to rest. Gotta be on your terminology toes with you two around.

Hope we haven't scared others away.