Its the fact that I tend to game in complete darkness, with only my illuminated keyboard and Copperhead , so screen bleed is something I would rather not have to deal with.
screen uniformity and colour reproduction are lesser concerns, but I guess its the quality of the projected image and performance when gaming ( no trace of ghosting and low lag) that take a higher rank.
Basically its a learning curve for me, I have had the Hyundai for around 2 years and I am now finding fault with it.
Lately started to get a little bit of eye strain, ghosting on a light background is noticeable, although its rated as an 8ms screen and the viewing angles although not too much of an issue as I sit directly in front of it (I have to as the colours get really dark in a few degrees), are pretty bad.
Perhaps I am being over fussy but I just don't like spending money on things I will be dissapointed in
no, that's fair enough, was just interested to see what the concern was. I'll try and put some perspective on it though for you, hopefully it helps:
--------------------------
Panel uniformity - the story was that AUO panels showed more pronounced backlight bleed. However, comparisons at the very reliable Xbit labs state
"I didn’t find serious problems although I had heard users’ reports that monitors with the AU Optronics matrix had a more irregular backlight. Again, our three matrixes were similar in this respect."
Behardware also tested the A vs S and found they were very similar. they state: "
The two screens have the same defect of a little white halo-very subtle-that you may notice on black images. If we wanted to split hairs, we could say that that of the A is slightly more visible. For us the existence of this little halo is overshadowed by this screen’s nice depth in black."
I'd conclude that there isn't really any major difference in uniformity of the models, and there probably shouldn't be since all the screens themselves are at least manufactured by Samsung, it shouldn't matter what panel is used really.
--------------------------
Colour accuracy / gamma curves - story was that Samsung panels offered the best default colour accuracy. There were also assumptions across forums then that the AUO and CMO versions were therefore crap and were really poor, some A panels were reported to have a tendancy towards blue. Xbit actually found the gamma cuves on the CMO model were the best
("The gamma curves are not quite good on the samples with Samsung and AUO matrixes. They are lower than necessary, resulting in a higher-contrast and darker picture, but jump up suddenly in the top right of the diagram. The CMO matrix doesn’t have such problems. The curves are not ideal, yet much better than on the other two samples. ")
BeHardware analysed the colour accuracy
here and found that yes, default colour accuracy was better on the S model. However, this was easily corrected with calibration and BH stated "
Standard rendering on the A version is poor, but this isn’t the end. The proof is that once it’s calibrated (with a probe), it has colors just as true as the S. You have to have the same initial conditions as on the S version for optimal results." you can even download an ICC profile from them which greatly improves colour rendering on the A version.
I'd conclude that yes, the Samsung version offers better default colour accuracy. But, and this is something i said when this issue first arose, you can calibrate all the screens to be very similar in performance anyway. BH even offer an ICC profile for the A version, so in this area, A vs S vs C doesn't really matter too much. If you have a colorimeter it wouldnt matter at all
--------------------------
Response Time - the story was that the Samsung panel was the fastest, since people assumed the spec of the AUO and CMO panels (being 5ms only) indicated it would be slower. However, all 3 panels are actually rated at 5ms, but the RTC impulse is applied via monitor electronics to all 3 versions. Xbit said "
Despite the rumors about allegedly slow matrixes from AUO and Chi Mei, the three samples of the monitor all had similar speeds in my tests. Above is the diagram for the slowest of them, the monitor with a Chi Mei matrix. Its average response is 3.7 milliseconds (it is lower by a few tenths of millisecond with the other two samples) which is an obvious indication of RTC. It means that the SyncMaster 226BW is a very fast monitor irrespective of the specific version and the employed matrix. The RTC error average is 11.6%. This value is similar between the three samples. It is acceptable and rather typical of today’s TN matrixes. RTC-related visual artifacts can be seen, yet they won’t disturb your gaming experience or work much."
Behardware add "
The 226BW A and 226BW S are strictly identical in games, movies, and everything in movement. The A is thus also a 2 ms." They also tested the input lag and concluded "
Good news, it’s comparable. It’s a hair less reactive than the S, but honestly, nothing no human could detect in games."
I'd conclude all are very equal in this regard, no issues here.
--------------------------
Conclusion - xbit labs says it all really: "
Thus, the versions of SyncMaster 226BW with different matrixes only differ in the setup of gamma curves and color temperature. And these differences may be not related to the matrix manufacturer at all. They may be due to differences in the firmware profiles written into the monitors at a specific factory or on a specific production date. At least you have seen above that the model with a CMO matrix is better than the model with a Samsung matrix in terms of gamma curves setup but worse than it in its color temperature setup.
The rest of parameters – response time, contrast ratio, brightness, and backlight uniformity – are so similar between the matrixes that most users are unlikely to notice any difference. So I think that differences between the versions of the 226BW model with different matrixes are greatly exaggerated in forum discussions. Each of the three matrixes delivers the specified parameters (particularly, each features Response Time Compensation) and the growth of interest to this issue must have been due to the indication of the matrix type on the label whereas the rest of the manufacturers often provide no opportunity to learn which matrix the monitor is based on unless you take its case apart with your screwdriver. So, the reason for the hot discussion is psychological rather than technical."
Behardware say it's still preferable in their opinion to get the S version because of the better default colour accuracy. However, as i said above, if you can calibrate the screen or use their ICC profile, it prob doesnt matter anyway. Apart from this, the comparisons seem to indicate that responsiveness and uniformity are at least very comparable between the three. I really wouldn't worry too much about this. There's way too much hype about this panel lottery, and most people seem all to keen to jump on the bandwagon without really being well informed.
hth
------------------
links:
http://www.behardware.com/articles/667-1/samsung-226bw-a-and-s-series-the-verdict.html
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/other/display/22inch_12.html#sect0
... this is a key purchase for many user and one that can be biwlidering due to hype, gossip and sometime dare I say it....scare mongering.
Thanks for that.