Hi all,
I'm looking for a new LCD monitor, and I'm trying to decide between the fast VA monitors (S-PVA and P-MVA) and the (apparently) very fast TN monitors. I use my computer for office work, so it is essential for the monitor to be very clear and easy on the eyes for extended periods of time. I also use the computer for quite a few fast-paced games (including FPS games and flight sims), and I would like to keep any possible blurring or ghosting to an absolute minimum. I don't perform any sort of graphical work/editing, so in theory I don't really need the full 16.7m colors that the VA monitors would provide. At this point, I'm leaning towards TN style monitors, but I do have a few questions.
First, how 'bad' do the colors look on a TN monitor? If I understand correctly, these 6-bit monitors use a technique known as dithering to give the illusion of greater color depth, but, for some users, this can give images a 'looking through a screen door' like appearance and/or the colors look 'off' compared with 8 bit alternatives. I saw a Samsung 930b monitor a few days ago on display in a store, and I didn't really see anything noticeable. Then again, the display was cycling through a set number of images and there wasn't any way to actually test the monitor.
Second, how much slower (in terms of blurring/ghosting being evident on the screen) are the fast VA monitors (Viewsonic VP930b, Samsung 970P) when compared to the fastest TN monitors (Viewsonic VX922, Hyundai Q90U, Benq FP93GX)? I've heard the 970P has an issue with a 'halo' or some such on moving objects, any truth to that?
Also, I was reading through this monitor review at Behardware:
http://www.behardware.com/articles/602-11/19-lcd-survey-2-3-4-6-8-ms-and-above.html
Maybe it's just me, but looking at the left image on the reaction time tests, it almost looked as though the vx924 and fp91v (3-4ms monitors) outpeformed the vx922 (2ms) slightly. It just looked like the second or 'ghost image' was a little bit easier to detect on the vx922 than on the vx924 and fp91v. I don't know, I guess that just struck me as odd since the panels for those monitors
were all made by AUO. Maybe the slightly different background color makes it more visible or maybe its just a random limitation associated with using the camera to take those pictures.
Any comments or recommendations would be much appreciated. Thanks.
I'm looking for a new LCD monitor, and I'm trying to decide between the fast VA monitors (S-PVA and P-MVA) and the (apparently) very fast TN monitors. I use my computer for office work, so it is essential for the monitor to be very clear and easy on the eyes for extended periods of time. I also use the computer for quite a few fast-paced games (including FPS games and flight sims), and I would like to keep any possible blurring or ghosting to an absolute minimum. I don't perform any sort of graphical work/editing, so in theory I don't really need the full 16.7m colors that the VA monitors would provide. At this point, I'm leaning towards TN style monitors, but I do have a few questions.
First, how 'bad' do the colors look on a TN monitor? If I understand correctly, these 6-bit monitors use a technique known as dithering to give the illusion of greater color depth, but, for some users, this can give images a 'looking through a screen door' like appearance and/or the colors look 'off' compared with 8 bit alternatives. I saw a Samsung 930b monitor a few days ago on display in a store, and I didn't really see anything noticeable. Then again, the display was cycling through a set number of images and there wasn't any way to actually test the monitor.
Second, how much slower (in terms of blurring/ghosting being evident on the screen) are the fast VA monitors (Viewsonic VP930b, Samsung 970P) when compared to the fastest TN monitors (Viewsonic VX922, Hyundai Q90U, Benq FP93GX)? I've heard the 970P has an issue with a 'halo' or some such on moving objects, any truth to that?
Also, I was reading through this monitor review at Behardware:
http://www.behardware.com/articles/602-11/19-lcd-survey-2-3-4-6-8-ms-and-above.html
Maybe it's just me, but looking at the left image on the reaction time tests, it almost looked as though the vx924 and fp91v (3-4ms monitors) outpeformed the vx922 (2ms) slightly. It just looked like the second or 'ghost image' was a little bit easier to detect on the vx922 than on the vx924 and fp91v. I don't know, I guess that just struck me as odd since the panels for those monitors
were all made by AUO. Maybe the slightly different background color makes it more visible or maybe its just a random limitation associated with using the camera to take those pictures.
Any comments or recommendations would be much appreciated. Thanks.