Is there a good affordable LCD monitor or ...

<p>.. or it is just a dream?</p>

 

<p>I had quite a few bad experiences with monitors and it doesn't seem to be

an end to this sometime soon.</p>

 

<p>I bought <b>Acer AL1916W</b> just to have something to look at ( no high

expectations from this monitor ) but first thing I see on the booting phase of

my computer was a dead pixel. I returned it and the second one had another dead

pixel .. and I did return it again for a <b>Samsung 740N</b> wich to this moment

seems to be ok but again I dont have any kind of expectations regarding good

color reproduction or even color across the screen or a good viewing angle from

this monitor so now complains.</p>

<p>I bought a new computer and a new monitor <b>Samsung 205BW</b> - and

return it for being just a crap monitor. Color was not consistent across the

screen - on dark shades there was no distinction on different shades, the back

lighting was visible blueish and brighter at the top and bottom edges of the

monitor - on red shades color reproduction across the screen was horrible -

there was no point from which if one looked could see the same shade of red.

Text was very difficult to read and sharpness which seemed to have 100 steps of

adjustment actually had 5 different steps - strong , less, normal, unusable

blurry and unbelievable blurry. </p>

<p>Now I got another LCD - <b>LG L222WT</b>, got it for a good price - open

box - and they didn't seem to know what's wrong with it - I had to take it home

to realize that it had a dead pixel. So even without the dead pixel it is a

horrible monitor. Not as bad as <b>Samsung 205BW</b> but still - if I move 10cm

(4inch) up or down it changes shades of color a lot. Gray shades near the top

edge are washed out to black, response time when switching from black to light

gray shade it's like turning a 500W incandescent light on or off. It takes

approximately 1 sec to stabilize. Horrible. Streaks .. but nothing new .. on

fast moving scenes. I look at my Adobe Lightroom window and gray on the top side

it's just black and there is no point from which I can look so the gray shows

the same.</p>

<p>I am tired and I think there is no monitor <b>under 500$</b> ( and that's

more than I can afford at this time) that could satisfy the <b>minimum</b>

requirements for photo editing. I guess there was one - I had the chance to

touch it with veneration - but it was a demo model that I didn't dare to buy it

- <b>Samsung 215TW</b>.</p>

<p>So can anyone demonstrate me the opposite? Is there a monitor under 500$

that can meet the minimum requirements for photo editing ? I repeat I just want

the minimum! I want <b>even color/shade reproduction across the screen and a

good viewing angle. </b>I don't care for refresh rates. I didn't see anything

yet among LCDs under 500$ that could match a 300$ CRT which I find very sad for

this industry.</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

<p>P.S. I know this question has been asked a thousand times. Probably we

don't want yet to believe there isn't such a thing.</p>

I think you got what you pay for saddly.

 

And i also think youre right about nothing is really good under 500$, if you want good viewing angle, color reproduction etc....

 

Put some money aside and wait when you got 700$ or more to spend to get better one ; )

 

and another 200$-300$ for a calibration device such as a Eye1.

One thing you can do to eliminate candidates is to avoid any LCD using TN (Twisted Nematic) technology panels. That technology is currently only 6-bit/color, and isn't optimum for photographic use--it dithers to give the <i>impression</i> of 8-bits, and has a narrower viewing angle. MVA, PVA, IPS, and S-IPS would be recommended. Samsung's 205BW is a TN-based panel, as is the 740N. (Samsung's <i>T-series</i> uses PVA panels; the rest seem to be TN-based.)

<p>

Unfortunately, most marketing literature doesn't identify the underlying panel technology used. You can get a fairly current listing of what technology is used for a given display using the <a href="http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/panelsearch_content.htm">tftcentral panelsearch</a>--or just enter IPS and see which models use that IPS or S-IPS technology in their panels.<p>

Currently, I know Dell makes 2 20" display which would be under $500 and acceptable: their 2007wfp and 2007fp units; there are other companies which have affordable models as well.

You not find any LCD useable, regardless of price, without some form of hardware-based calibration system. Samsung, Viewsonic and others make professiona graphics monitors which are fine once calibrated. A suitable 19", 1024x1280 monitor can cost less than $300. If you want more resolution or a wide-screen monitor, get one 23" or larger.

Edward Ingold, "A suitable 19", 1024x1280 monitor can cost less than $300."

 

Can you list some specific models? I'd love to find an LCD that I can calibrate decently for under $300. Sorting through all the models that don't have anything near 8 bits of color resolution is the biggest problem I've run into in my search.

"I don't care for refresh rates. I didn't see anything yet among LCDs under 500$ that could match a 300$ CRT which I find very sad for this industry"

 

That is the main reason I sill keep my CRT(old clunker) on my desk at home. I desperately would like to save some room on my desk, but with the quality of LCDs it's not going to happen.

but with the quality of LCDs it's not going to happen...

 

you mean; but with the quality of CHEAP under 500$ LCDs it's not going to happen ; )

Geoff,

 

You will probably not find true 8-bit monitor of any size for less than $500, perhaps $1000. However, some 6-bit monitors with dithering are pretty good. The giveaway is "16.2 million colors" instead of 16.7 million. I'm using a Viewsonics VP191, which I've seen for as little as $245 (I paid nearly $400). If it dithers the colors, I can't see any artifacts. The screen is uniform from corner to corner, and I can move 10 inches from side to side without observable changes.

 

Refresh rate is a non-issue with LCD monitors. There is no flicker whatsoever, even at 60 Hz. There is some issue with rise rate for viewing movies and playing games. However, rapid response seems to be at odds with color quality.

 

The advantages of an LCD over a CRT are profound. The screen is really flat, the image fills the screen and is sharp from border to border and the brightness is very good. Linearity and convergence are intrinsically perfect. When I look at my CRT monitors, it seems like I have a thumbprint on my glasses, maybe the beginnings of cataracts. Glossy screens look good in a store, but are a PITA for critical editing due to extraneous reflections.

Edward - many thanks for the info! Yesterday I checked a couple of monitors here at work with one of the color-gradient generators and found exactly the situation you describe. For example, a Dell E172FPt (very low-end LCD with a TN panel) showed no banding artifacts.

 

I guess this is case where I just need to go to a "Bricks-and-Mortar" store with the gradient-generator program and find an inexpensive monitor that looks good.