New 120Hz/"240Hz" VA monitor for gamers (Eizo Foris FG2421)

[aatu]

Here's a nice treat for gamers:
Eizo Foris FG2421

Here are some reviews:
http://www.flatpanelshd.com/review.php?subaction=showfull&id=1383107475
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/eizo_fg2421.htm

Now available straight from stock at OCUK:
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MO-004-EO

Summary:
- VA (8bit colors)
- 120Hz input
- "240Hz" output with Lightboost-like technology for blur-free image (though also possible to disable)
- 1920x1080
- DP, DVI-D, HDMI
- matte screen surface (apparently not that "aggressive" AG, though)
- 24" (23.5")
- Flicker-free, meaning no PWM used above 20% brightness (when not using the 240Hz-feature, naturally)
- £450

Not that I would personally buy it though, 24" is a little too small for my taste. Apart from that, seem like Eizo has made all the right choices.

Ps. My country usually lags at least few months behind, but this time Finland was among the first to stock these.

 

[aatu]

With regards to VA vs. IPS vs. TN:
Viewing angles -- IPS > VA > TN
Color/image quality -- VA > IPS > TN

Or at least the deep blacks and contrast in general are better with VA. Though I think color accuracy is generally considered to be better with IPS monitors.

As for OCUK selling this:
I think I remember OCUK having some kind of request form for starting to stock a certain product, and if there are enough requests, they will consider it. Though I can't find it, anymore. Maybe I'm confusing OCUK with someone else...?

Well, to anyone wanting OCUK to stock them: make a request here in the forums, and maybe they'll notice it. Or use one of the official contact venues: http://www.overclockers.co.uk/contact.php

 

[aatu]

You don't pay much attention to monitors, then? VA is one of the three main LCD panel types.
Might not have gotten as much glory as the IPS recently, but it's indeed one of the big players.

 

[aatu]

@StonedPenguin, with regards to smoothness and colors:
At least the reviewer at flatpanelshd seemed quite pleased with the result. Though bear in mind, they are more focused on TV tech, and don't have as refined testing methods (nor expectations) as the more specialized computer monitor review sites.

Also, this is apparently the first consumer-grade 120Hz VA computer monitor. If you have the patience, there will surely be others to follow in the near future (like 6 months, maybe less?). And the prices will hopefully come down a bit, too. Though considering the current price of 120+Hz TN monitors, I don't see the price coming down THAT dramatically, as VA is indeed still a superior tech. But a £50-£100 price reduction might be possible with lower tier brands. Unless, of course, AUO wants to take over the market and starts to sell the panels with a really low margin, then they might get even lower in price.

 

[aatu]

@HonoredShadow:

That is indeed odd. I don't remember anyone else mentioning about severe ghosting. Could you post a video (or image) of this behaviour?

Is it happening in any other games? Or in desktop?

@others:
Could someone else confirm whether or not this is happening on theirs?

edit:
partly ninja'ed...

 

[aatu]

I was under the impression that most LCD TVs are still using TN-FILM panels.
Plasma is still better, if you want the best image quality, colour reproduction and black levels.

If you go on various forums, people boast about IPS screens and I'm thinking that perhaps I have slipped into a parallel dimension where VA (LCD) and plasma tech doesnt exist.

Nonononono, TN panels are quite rare on HDTVs nowadays. Few years back it was quite common to find TN panels on smaller HDTVs, but nowadays they're mostly found on no-name brands only (and probably even then only on smaller ones).

VA and IPS are the driving forces, it seems. Some people predicted plasmas would be gone by 2012, but apparently they're only on a slow decline to their ever-imminent death. While plasma does indeed have some advantages over most of the LCD panel types, there are some undeniable drawbacks, too (power draw being the most obvious, I think).

And while the IPS and VA panels are essentially the same on HDTVs and computer monitors, nobody should compare them directly together. They're quite different in nature. The electronics inside make a world of difference (some for the worse, some for the better, depending on what you want from them).

 

[aatu]

Plasma vs. LCD:

Tenner? Well, that kind of depends on how much you're using it, don't you think? If you don't use it at all, then there's no difference in power consumption...

But fear not, as I have made some quick comparative calculations, and I've come up with the average watts/inch results (only the calibrated figures in here, more details inside the spoiler):
Plasma: 4.93
LCD: 1.25
(LCD, 4k: 2.26)

Difference: about 4x (or +300%)

So let's take a 55" for average (quite large, but plasmas are, so for comparison's sake):
Plasma -- 4.93x55 = 271.15 (W)
LCD -- 1.25x55 = 68.75 (W)

And let's take the average of 3hrs per day, with an average 0.20€/kWh:
Plasma -- 3x271.15x365/1000*0.2 = 59.38 (€)
LCD -- 3x68.75x365/1000*0.2 = 15.06 (€)

Naturally, if the usage is lower/higher, then it multiplies linearly. Also make a note of the size, 55" is just used here as an average. In any case, with the average example, that's already a 44€ annual difference.

Unfortunately, no 4k readings for plasma, and I doubt there ever will be any consumer-grade 4k plasmas. This, from what I've understood, is a fundamental design issue, as the cells would need to get very small, which is already a problem with 1920x1080 at rational sizes. Also, as plasma has to illuminate each pixel separately (as opposite to the LCD's backlight), the 4k power draw would be quite problematic, too. There just wouldn't be any sensible comparison with 4k, even if it scaled linearly.

Add to that the minimum size of 42" (and even very few of those! 50" and 60" seem to be the norm) and a minimum price around £400 (while most of them £800+), and you're getting to the point why plasma is justifiably on its way out. LCDs are simply much more versatile.

More thorough details inside the spoiler:

Spoiler

== All figures are collected from hdtvtest.co.uk, to maintain comparison effectiveness ==

Form:
Watts/Watts3D (size)
(none of the LCD's have separate 3D readings, apparently they're so close together to 2D?)


Non-calibrated plasma power consumption:
335 (50)
187 (65)
169/270 (60)
565/649 (64)
238/424 (55)
184/304 (50)
111/162 (42)
304/236 (65)
382/408 (64)
156/186 (51)

W/inch, average:
5.0546475559


Calibrated plasma power consumption:
172 (50)
304 (65)
279/460 (60)
248/494 (64)
260/355 (55)
179/304 (50)
136/226 (42)
285/338 (65)
419/384 (64)
151/196 (51)

W/inch, average:
4.9266424133


Non-calibrated LCD power consumption:
31 (46)
23 (32)
54 (40)
57 (55)
47 (32)
77 (42)
36 (42)
42 (42)
76 (32)
36 (47)
50 (32)
69 (46)
75 (55)
35 (55)
76 (40)
49 (42)
79 (46)

W/inch, average:
1.2897510758


Calibrated LCD power consumption:
57 (46)
32 (32)
51 (40)
78 (55)
41 (32)
59 (42)
43 (42)
44 (42)
50 (32)
42 (47)
36 (32)
68 (46)
84 (55)
64 (55)
61 (40)
38 (42)
61 (46)

W/inch, average:
1.2468169748


Unfortunately, we can't compare 32" models directly, as there are none available in the plasma alternatives. Even 42" comparison is a little iffy, as there was only one even semi-recently reviewed model I found.

But if you want to make direct watts/inch comparisons:
42": plasma 4.31, LCD 1.10
55": plasma 5.59, LCD 1.37


And here's a comparison for LCD 4k:

Non-calibrated 4k:
133 (65)
71 (55)
206 (65)

W/inch, average:
2.1687645688


Calibrated 4k:
140 (65)
125 (55)
144/163 (65)

W/inch, average:
2.2627039627

 

[aatu]

@sunama:
Nah, not really bothered about power consumption, myself. It was just something I knew about plasmas, so had to bring it up.

But I can agree that on the higher end, yes, the plasmas give unrivaled image quality. But below £1000, they're apparently not faring that well. Granted, there are exceptions, especially Panasonic has a habit of occasionally setting more reasonable prices (the TX-P42ST60 seems like a potential winner*). But quite usually, particularly the low-end plasmas, are indeed lacking in some sense (like limiting the resolution to 1024x768), in addition to the unavoidable compromises that come with plasma by default.

*): assuming one doesn't intend to play games with it (bad input lag...)

@3t3P:
Well actually, like I said above, you'll have to pay significantly more for plasmas if you want the good stuff. It's more like I can save a few HUNDRED while purchasing the LCD, and after that it's the 44€ saving per year. So it amounts to a little more than a few quid...

Of course, for people who aren't strapped for cash, there's no problem. But most people can't afford to splurge 1k+ to a TV.

 

[aatu]

@krooton:
Hmm, you do understand that the P42C3 in question has a 4:3 (1024x768) resolution in a 16:9 frame...? This is quite common in low-end plasmas. In essence, it's basically distorting the source image (1024x768 16:9 plasmas have rectangular pixels). Furthermore, 1024x768 can't actually even display a full 720p image, which would be 1280x720. Though it is quite close to it. But it will still need some sampling, dithering, scaling, etc, so it can fit it into its limited resolution. Simply put, the 1024x768 plasmas are technically standard definition TVs that can remix HD signals.

As for LCDs, the HD-readiness hasn't been a problem for quite some time. One of LCD's problems, however, was the common practice of using 1366x768 for HD-ready TVs, which while enough for 720p, didn't give 1:1 pixel perfection. Fortunately it has become increasingly easier to find FullHD counterparts. Nowadays FullHD is found even on the very small LCD sets.

And £300 is quite enough even for FullHD LCDs. For £400, you could have gotten for example the Toshiba 40RV753 (VA panel), which got very nice review in its time, while the P42C3 got mediocre review. As for which one would have been better for your GF's parents, can't tell. Even SD material looks fine on a 42" from a few meters' distance. The fact that the P42C3 was a fitting choice for your GF's parents' arrangement is more of a proof to the fact that it was a good fit for a specific situation, not that it would have generally been a good option.

But considering they (the GF's parents) are of the older generation, then they more probably have worse eye-sight and thus no compelling need for higher definition. But going FullHD certainly wouldn't have deteriorated the image quality, either. But indeed, if the viewing angle is relatively wide, then yes, plasmas should be a better choice for that.

=====================

@sunama:
Yes, like I said, Panasonic has a history of using more reasonable pricing, especially the ST60.

But, as for LCD alternatives:
Sony KDL42W653
Panasonic TX-L42E6E/TX-L42E6B
Samsung UE42F5500
Samsung UE46F6400/UE46F6470
Samsung UE40ES6710 (possibly also Samsung UE40ES6740)

They're all about £100-£200 cheaper (except the last one, that one is about the same), but I wouldn't hold that against it.

Apparently you can't get better than the Sony KDL42W653 for gaming or computer usage, atm. Actually, I'm a little disappointed I bought my Philips 42PFL6907T before the Sony's review came out. I would have probably rather gone with that, even though I would have missed on some nice features. And even though I normally prefer Philips over Sony. The smaller brother, KDL32W653, while also getting a very good review, has somehow managed to lose some of its gaming edge.

Another good alternative for gamers would be the Samsung UE42F5500. The rest of the list are more to the general usage scenarios (although the gamers' choices are also good for general usage, but have less features).

Note: I don't like to use digitalversus as a review source, as they have a bad habit of generalizing all the sizes of a specific model to be the same, and this isn't always the case. But unfortunately hdtvtest.co.uk doesn't have reviews of all of them... So you should always apply the results only to the exact model they are reviewing, and keep the results in mind for the other sizes with a small precaution. Also, some of the hdtvtest's better reviewed models get quite mediocre marks over at DV, so a little caution is indeed in order.

And as for the size limitation:
I would personally disagree on the "only" part.
(and actually, I think the plasma's size limitation nowadays is 42")

With regards to your sister's LCD:
Bad motion interpolation implementation, perhaps?

=========================

@3t3P:
The "disappear" notion made me think of Philips' Ambilight feature. You should try to see it in action, you might like it. If you do, you can implement it to your current plasma, too. There should be some self-assembly kits with "easy"-to-follow how-to's around the net. Though indeed, it requires a little bit of own assembly skill.

With regards to the stuff coming "out" of the image: I don't think that the contrast ratio alone can have the 3D effect you're describing. It might just be a case of good source footage.

As for the FG2421 and 3D:
The advertized "240Hz" is the lightboost-like black-frame-insertion feature, and it should be possible to disable for a regular 120Hz input. But it might be that the used VA panel was still not fast enough for an adequate 3D effect, because with 3D the next frame really needs to be there on time. For 2D, the real-life error tolerance is leaner. Although, they could have gone for passive 3D in that case. That would have given us the first 120Hz passive 3D, as well.

It might also be that the 3D compatibility (or lack of) might have something to do with licensing bringing the costs too high. Or maybe the active glasses themselves would have brought the price too high. As £450 is already quite borderline for a 24". Well, more competitors should follow. Hopefully with lower prices. I haven't yet checked the CES news, I hoped that it would bring more news of alternatives. Eizo will probably still stay as a good alternative, though, as Eizo is indeed generally considered as a premium brand, and will give some ease of mind for those who want it.

@Vega:
Yeah, I think I read somewhere that Panasonic's main reason for stepping out of plasma market was that the costs for bringing plasma to the impending 4k era would be too high. (in other words, research&development of a way to make plasma cells significantly smaller within reasonable manufacturing costs)

 

[aatu]

Plasma vs LCD:

How many of the brought-forward figures are actually tested, I wonder? Because indeed, the real-world tests are the ones that matter. So if anyone is more interested, I would encourage to buy a watt-o-meter with a kWh and/or Cost mode. You know, the ones that you plug between the wall and the device, and they will calculate the necessary information (the basic models cost like 10€, I think). Then just keep the television (be it LCD or plasma) on for 10 hours, alternating with regular broadcasts, movies, maybe even some computer time.

And please don't temporarily change your current settings for "economy" or "energy saving", we want to know the real world values. And please state your model number, too.

For example, my Philips 42PFL6907T (42" LCD, 2012), takes about 80W, which is pretty much the max achievable power draw from it. With about 10h daily, this amounts to 290 kWh annually.
-- 80W in both 2D and 3D, no matter the source material
-- with only one change, it would take only about 45W (165kWh/a) if I simply let the backlight go into a PWM-mode by enabling "Dynamic backlight", but I'm a bit stubborn, so I won't let it
-- with a few extra changes, I could get it all the way down to 35W (130kWh/a), and even without any noticeable image quality difference, pretty much only affecting the PWM

So while it is indeed possible to specifically fine-tune a plasma to use less than 200W, the same analogy applies to LCDs, too. If we make compromises with the features and settings, then yes, we can get it way below the norm. But I thought that plasmas were all about not making compromises with regards to image quality?
-- in other words, please test with your actual settings and in real-world scenarios, don't cherry-pick to prove a (false) point
-- if you necessarily want to cherry-pick, you might as well blatantly lie about the figures, wouldn't make a difference

And the power usage is indeed important, as you can reasonably offset the electricity bill savings to the TV purchase, itself. In essence, you might end up comparing a 600€ plasma to a 1000€ LCD. That's the difference it makes.
But also note that the offset cost hugely depends on your
a) average daily usage
b) planned lifetime of the device
c) your electricity tariff

From what I've seen, plasmas draw about 4x more power in AVERAGE when compared to LCDs of the same size (both using calibrated settings).

Or if there is someone who would like to refute the figures, I would insist that the same person would kindly provide us with better figures, as in my opinion a review site (hdtvtest.co.uk) that focuses solely on HDTV tests (plasmas and LCDs alike) should be quite a fitting choice for the average source data.

As for the FG2421:
Forgot to make an update to the first post that now they're on stock at OCUK.
Scratch that, seems like I didn't forget, after all. Updated and cleaned up the first post now even further, though. Also: normally £450, but this-week-only-offer has them for £420.

 

[aatu]

@3t3P:
Yes, mine has one, too (LR44, 1.5V). It's useful if you want to maintain memory of previous usage and tariffs. Otherwise it would reset all the info once you remove the thing from the mains or if there is a black-out. Unfortunately, at least in my unit it seems like the LCD display in it is also powered by the battery, so it simply needs the battery, for it to be of any use. If I remove the battery, the display will remain blank even if connected to the mains. This, in turn, might be because the circuitry is driven by DC, and would thus need an additional AC/DC converter just for that. So simpler to just include a small battery which takes care of the operational side (calculations, memory, display). One battery will last for years. My unit doesn't even have an on/off switch (nor auto-switch-off timer), so it's displaying a static 0 watts all the time when sitting in the shelf. Actually, the battery had leaked and accumulated some of the powdery white stuff and the display was blank, but I just cleaned the contact surfaces and now it's again going strong.
(even though it now gives only ~1.2V)

@Gazb:
The plasma came into discussion via black levels and contrast ratios. Then came the discussion of power consumption. Then the comparison of the cost savings, and how much it affects the overall cost of the purchase.

In essence, my opinion:
Plasma indeed still has plenty of things going in its favor. But if you weigh in the cost savings, you can offset the cumulative electricity cost savings straight to the purchase, and thus you should compare higher price point LCDs to lower price point plasmas, after which LCD is quite tempting. Naturally, if you're going to spend £2000+ and you only use the set for 1-2 hours a day, then the offset is relatively quite small, and plasma will have better odds.

But in any case, that still doesn't remove the fact that plasma is a dying breed. It's not a coincidence that Panasonic is stepping out of the plasma market. Nevertheless, I'd say there will be new models from other manufacturers for a couple of years. But wouldn't hold my breath for a 4k model (at least not any reasonably sized/priced)...

And power consumption isn't the only trade-off with plasmas, there's also the heat, size, weight, resolution issues. Power consumption is just the most notable issue.

Note: CRT didn't vanish because of inferior image quality. Similarly, plasma won't vanish because of inferior image quality. No, they lost the game because LCD is more versatile and cheaper to produce. For the oblivious average-joe the image quality is not worth the extra cost and other drawbacks. The average-joe would have been content with the low-end TN panels, if the new more price-competitive IPS and VA panels hadn't emerged. Actually, the image quality isn't worth for the extra cost and drawbacks for most of the more knowledgeable people, either.

 

[aatu]

Yeah, even a 1080p 27" version of this would have been a very welcome guest. And what strikes me even more odd is that the competitors haven't yet brought forward any alternatives for the same panel... Are the others so gung-ho on 4k panels or something?

Hmm, now that I think about it, maybe the gamma-shift problem is preventing them from going for a bigger size? But that still doesn't explain why the competitors aren't flocking for the 24" variants. Furthermore, there are plenty of 27" TN monitors, I would assume they have it even worse with regards to viewing angles.

edit:
Actually, now that I checked, the 27" VA panels are indeed relatively uncommon, altogether. In the 27" range, there are about 3-4 times more IPS and TN variants when compared to VA.

 

[aatu]

I don't think I've ever encountered cross-hatching in any of the monitors I've come across (or at least I haven't regarded it as an issue), so I don't know how bad it can get.

But as a general rule:
If it's disturbing your everyday usage, then you might consider sending it back. But do note, manufacturer/seller probably won't accept it back as a "defect", so you might have to resort to DSR (if applicable). But on the other hand, if you indeed have to specifically "look for it", and if there's nothing else wrong with the monitor, then I'd suggest you keep it.

 

[aatu]

@wunkley:

I'd like to comment on the backlight bleed and ghosting:

I do understand why OCUK might deny the backlight bleed issue. Some people are quite strict when it comes to certain features. Backlight bleed as such is indeed a problem mainly when the screen is dark. For regular desktop work, it's mostly a non-issue. Though naturally can't tell the severity of it without seeing it firsthand. Also, if it's not visible in "normal" backlight bleed tests, then could it be something else? (I assume you know the difference between backlight bleed and the VA's typical off-angle gamma shift, for example...?)

As for the ghosting, it really sounds odd that they won't even address it. They ought to give at least some kind of response/opinion to it. Even if it's just "we didn't see any problem with it". You could send a separate email that clearly clarifies that you want to discuss the ghosting, too.

 

[aatu]

Input lag:
"ms" is milliseconds, so it's actually one thousandth of a second. By itself, few milliseconds is indeed unnoticeable. But once they begin to stack up (internet ping, wifi signal transmission, wireless mouse signal transmission, mouse signal polling time, monitor signal transmission, monitor pixel response time) it will make a difference. For FPS games, it's recommended to have less than 16ms monitor input lag. The other lags are usually not so commonly talked about. But yes, ping is the greatest factor for the overall lag. But monitor input lag is the greatest factor that affects VISUAL lag.

Example 1: Low ping, high input lag
In this case there's no lag between your computer and the game server. But you (or rather, your mouse), your computer and your monitor have a lag between them. This means that when you try to aim, the view seems sluggish, meaning your aim doesn't start moving at the same moment you move your mouse, and it won't stop moving when you stop moving your mouse. FPS gaming is not enjoyable, other games might not be so hugely affected.

Example 2: High ping, low input lag
In this case what you're seeing will be fluid and responsive. You can aim easily, and the control is enjoyable and reactive. Though if the game doesn't compensate for ping lag, you might still miss. This compensation means that your game client will send your aiming information to the server, and server will apply it to the "real" action. This is sometimes manifested as odd kills, like if you were sure you safely made it behind cover, but a moment later it tells you were shot, after all. That's because either you and/or your enemy had a high ping, and the server had to fix/fit the action logs together.

If you're playing competitively, then the monitor is not the only thing you should be concerned with: wired internet connection and wired mouse are also recommended, in addition to fast internet speed.

For single player games, and especially non-FPS games, 32ms monitor input lag should still be adequate. Though lower is always better.

And regards the 27":
Yes, indeed. Why isn't there one, after all this time? One reason could be the price, as the 24" was already around £500 (now £400), so the 27" could have climbed to £600+. Another could be that Eizo wants to keep certain level of quality, and they would have had to increase the resolution for 27", so the price would have skyrocketed...

 

[aatu]

@mrix:
If your new VA panel is losing to an old TN(*) panel in colours, then yes, you are most probably doing something wrong. Or alternatively, your unit is defective.

(*): I'm assuming TN, as you're stating 120Hz, which 3.5 years ago wasn't possible with IPS or VA

 

[aatu]

Well, there aren't really any concrete "tests" to confirm. You would have to just play around with the settings and try to get the best possible picture. If it's not possible to get a good picture no matter what you try, then there might be something wrong with the hardware. But usually it's just that the settings are wrong.

- Try to find discussions where other users have stated their settings with this monitor, and start from there. It won't necessarily be perfect, but it should be a fairly accurate point to start, so you can finetune from there. Here's one from an actual review site: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/content/eizo_fg2421.htm#calibration --- If you haven't already, you should probably read the whole review to get some further insight of the ins and outs of your monitor.

- Here's one link where you can try to further calibrate/finetune the monitor by your own sight: http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/ --- Not really as good as professional hardware calibration, but should suffice for consumer grade usage.

- Also remember that the colors aren't supposed to "pop", even though some people like it. If you have even a fairly mediocre camera, you should take a picture of something colourful on your surroundings. Preferably the scenery outdoors (with some random objects here and there), so that the room lights won't conflict with the light output. After that, try to set the colour settings so that the image and the reality are as closely matched as possible. Also make sure there aren't any color effects or "filters" enabled in the camera.

 

[aatu]

I'd think you'll have trouble selling it even for £200. Unless the buyer is oblivious of technological advances, and only sees "120Hz", "240Hz" and "gaming monitor".

But bear in mind, that monitor is almost four years old. In essence, it was released before the 120Hz+ IPS panels became mainstream, and before the VA panels started gaining against IPS. Since then, both IPS panels and VA panels have progressed in terms of size, resolution, refresh rate and lag. And most importantly, adaptive sync technologies. Against today's gaming monitors, it simply doesn't hold its ground.

It is an Eizo, though. Eizo is more of a premium brand, so those maintain their value slightly better. You could indeed try £300 and see whether some unfortunate soul takes the bite. But if you want to move it faster, you need to set a more competitive price, probably £200 or maybe even £150.