I mean all of that, there is very little distinction between subtle shades, looking at photographs, everyone looks airbrushed and made of plasticine.
In videos, everything looked bland and flat.
When I got the monitor, I had to check that it hadn't defaulted to a 16 bit colour depth, that's how instantly noticeable it was. The banding in games was atrotious.
When I had both monitors running together, I took a few screenshots in left 4 dead 2 to compare them side by side and the difference was massive. The 950 looked totally washed out, there was lots of banding, a lack of definition, the colours was washed out and less vibrant across the board, even the punchy blue sports car at the start of dark carnival looked muted and dull.
I tried every combination of settings to get this monitor to look good.
One way of making the colours more vibrant and punchy was to lower the gamma slightly in my gpu settings, tilt the monitor back slightly and ramp up the contrast on the display.
The monitor then started to get closer to looking half decent but of course it was useless because these settings totally destroyed the black levels and bright colours from about 26 upwards here -
http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/contrast.php were just a block of the same colour.
Yes, I agree, either people are used to bad screens and notice no difference, are exagerating how good the panel is, or I just have a bad egg.
the samsung 245b is by no means a great monitor, a new modern 600 quid job should be blowing it out of the water in every respect.
So far my experience with 120hz has been bad, my 245b has put both the 950 and the lg I tried to shame.
120hz is very nice, I want it, but it's been a real pain in the backside so far
Yeah, it's been all boxed up and ready to go for the last 5 days, just waiting for some parcel paper to arrive.