Why are monitors so crap?

In terms of IQ, there really hasn't been that much of an improvement throughout the last 10 years (have had/used various monitors ranging from dell, lg and iiyama etc.) unless you're willing to pay ££££ for a sub par HDR FALD monitor.... And then the question comes in, if you can accommodate large screens, why pay the same or more for a considerably inferior experience.....

I got sick and tired of the monitor market a good 3+ years ago and just got an OLED 55", haven't looked back, nothing comes close to it, at least for my usage and needs, recently bought the iiyama 34" 1440 144HZ freesync 2 monitor and for the "price", it's certainly not bad but still, my e7 does everything so much better, motion clarity ****** all over the iiyama, especially when FPS are similar/lower, screen tearing, not an issue as I play locked at 60 fps with enhanced sync/vsync (rather have this than FPS fluctuating between 48-144hz, even with freesync), sure input lag is a bit higher but it isn't noticeable when chilling back on the couch and using a wireless xbox controller.

Unfortunately that is monitor vs TV market though, the monitor market will never be able to compete with a far larger and more accessible market, especially when it comes to the price.
 
The problem with the G7 is it’s 1440p and 27 inch.... not good enough. It needs to be 4K or you can see the pixels and it’s so ugly. I look at my iMac at work and it’s like a phone screen it is so good. I’m just surprised on PC everyone goes on about Graphics Cards, but who cares when the games look worse than on a phone or console. Because you’re playing on a crappy Monitor and they’re playing on a lab OLED, even Samsung’s TVs look better with the FALD.

The G7 has a form of local dimming and it sucks, why? Why can’t they replicate what they do on their TVs? There are few zones and you can see them turning on and off, it’s horrible. Also if the monitor is tilted in slightly the wrong angle, it’s all washed out. You have to have it tilting slightly up and dead on.
 
Nexus18 said:
In terms of IQ, there really hasn't been that much of an improvement throughout the last 10 years (have had/used various monitors ranging from dell, lg and iiyama etc.) unless you're willing to pay ££££ for a sub par HDR FALD monitor.... And then the question comes in, if you can accommodate large screens, why pay the same or more for a considerably inferior experience.....

I got sick and tired of the monitor market a good 3+ years ago and just got an OLED 55", haven't looked back, nothing comes close to it, at least for my usage and needs, recently bought the iiyama 34" 1440 144HZ freesync 2 monitor and for the "price", it's certainly not bad but still, my e7 does everything so much better, motion clarity ****** all over the iiyama, especially when FPS are similar/lower, screen tearing, not an issue as I play locked at 60 fps with enhanced sync/vsync (rather have this than FPS fluctuating between 48-144hz, even with freesync), sure input lag is a bit higher but it isn't noticeable when chilling back on the couch and using a wireless xbox controller.

Unfortunately that is monitor vs TV market though, the monitor market will never be able to compete with a far larger and more accessible market, especially when it comes to the price.
Click to expand...

I know that you meant picture quality but IQ has also stagnated this last ten years. Had people of kept thier cash they would be forced to come up with quality panels. But you got people buying 1440p 27 inch panels at 144-165hz and wtf can you do when the mongol horde hand over the cash manufactuers can hold off on 4k for now.


Thier all made in Asia, They do not really cost £800 but if muppets hand out that cash then it quickly will be. Me? I got the Eizo FG2421 and used it after my 2007WFP and before that i had a CRT and i now got the £268 280hz which i run at 1080/280 or 4k/280.


All for under £300... And people paid near 2k for 4k 144hz! Facepalm... Thats what i learned in 20yrs of PC gaming normally its your average consumer who is his worst enemy and stagnates progress. Pricing on Nvidia is pretty much also all thier fault. And everytime i open this forum and see the sheer popularity and spec me threads for 27inch 1440p IPS i want to break my face on the keyboard.
 
How can you say on one hand that image quality has “stagnated for the last 10 years”, and on the other then say that you’re still using a 1080p screen?! Are you talking purely about pixel density and resolution here? There’s been significant improvements in refresh rate and response times for instance which you’ve taken advantage of

there are plenty of high res displays at lower prices as well, but not everyone wants 4K on a smaller pc monitor. Scaling is a pain in many cases, and it just adds to system drain for gaming. To most it’s just not useful or necessary. 1440p is a significant step up from 1080p screens as well, but you’re still stuck using small 24” size type screens at 1080p?!
 
My brother games on a 32” 1980*1080 TV he’s got an AMD Vega 64 graphics card. The TV has none of the latest monitor specs such as 4K 144hz Gsync and Freesync.

He prefers TV to monitors because he can watch TV too. Doesn’t need a Vega 64 @ 1080p it’s a waste imo.
 
Baddass said:
How can you say on one hand that image quality has “stagnated for the last 10 years”, and on the other then say that you’re still using a 1080p screen?! Are you talking purely about pixel density and resolution here? There’s been significant improvements in refresh rate and response times for instance which you’ve taken advantage of

there are plenty of high res displays at lower prices as well, but not everyone wants 4K on a smaller pc monitor. Scaling is a pain in many cases, and it just adds to system drain for gaming. To most it’s just not useful or necessary. 1440p is a significant step up from 1080p screens as well, but you’re still stuck using small 24” size type screens at 1080p?!
Click to expand...


Theres no real significant upgrade over 1080p though is there when the panel size is 24 vs 27? We covered this its 24% pixel density. Considering my eyes think you can park a volvo lorry between the pixels at 1080p then 1440p isnt going to make any difference is it. I do not really game that much as 1080p unless a game has 8x MSAA then i run 4k DSR which really is significant actually and keeps the refresh rate so if i had to look back when i had my CRT i would say yes it has stagnated. Indeed display quality went backwards for ten years.


I would say in my opinion, CRT has yet to be beaten unless you use the latest 4k displays then the pixels are massive because of how LCD works. And also i do not buy 1080p out of choice, I buy it out of desperation because of the stagnation. As i said what choice do i have if i refuse to buy 1440p and they demand crazy prices for 4k?


Buying the panel i did was an act of desperation to satisfy myself and to get closer to what i had in the year 2000. And while as you said i enjoyed the response time increase ( Did I over CRT?) I have enjoyed the refresh rate increase but its still been taking a stupidly long time. Why does it take so long? Because we live in an age where milking the consumer and drip feeding them so if they are going to spend 5 years milking 1440p then i will play no part in it and simply buy a cheap 1080p panel. At least when i paid £268 i am sending them a message. That if you want significant money from me then you best give 4k 144hz or 165hz now and do it at a good price.
 
There’s a big difference in picture quality between 1080p and 1440p, especially on 27” screens

And 4k is pretty pointless on those size sceeens altogether. More hassle than it’s worth for general uses. That’s only really useful for much larger screens generally

if you don’t want to increase resolution for whatever reason, what DO you want to see improved for picture quality?
 
LiE said:
4K is useful on 27" if you value sharper text and UI using scaling, but yea in gaming on 27" 4K is not worth it.
Click to expand...
it can be useful in some circumstances, including CAD/CAM and image processing, but i would say for the majority of people/average consumers it will present more problems than it's worth with scaling, system drain, application support for scaling etc.
 
Baddass said:
it can be useful in some circumstances, including CAD/CAM and image processing, but i would say for the majority of people/average consumers it will present more problems than it's worth with scaling, system drain, application support for scaling etc.
Click to expand...


Yea i am not an average consumer i have to admit but,
You have to blame CRT then as it has if i remember correctly zero aliasing. From memory i remember also that gliding smoothness and zero motion blur. You have games now also with pretty much no anti aliasing that is not a post process form of AA and thus blurs the picture a little. So really you rely or I do anyways on sheer pixel per inch so the damm foilage sparkling goes away and shimmering also. This is why i will not go 1440p you say there is a differenxe but 25% is not enough in my eyes to fix the abomination that is 1080p without MSAA.


The scaling also should not be that much of an issue on 4K 27 inch either its not the monitors fault game developers can not implelment the same UI scaling as Overwatch does for high PPI. So scaling is not an issue unless you go 24 inch or use it for non gaming. I do not browse on my gaming PC i simply would like them to give 4k high refesh in a 27 inch format that has a quality panel and reflects the fact that i could get 280hz for £268.
 
I came to the same conclusion as the OP last year.

After sending back a handful of 'top of the range' 27" monitors, I decided to stick with my 5+ year old BenQ, 27", 60Hz, 1440p until I see something that is actually worth my money.
 
PC 'gaming' monitors are now complete crap IMO, simply due to them being (relatively) low volume, compared to TV manufacturing volume.

For gaming monitors, there's a great demand for a 32"-40" IPS 4k monitor, with HDR1000, 144Hz, HDMI 2.1 etc. These don't exist yet, and when they do, they'll likely be £2000-£3000+, judging by the premium Asus commanded with their first 4k 27" high refresh rate monitor. You'll also have the horrible build quality, horrible quality control, including black light bleed.

Thankfully, the new console generation are predicted to sell hundreds of millions of units, meaning there's a big demand for such displays in TV's, hence why LG stepped up and released the C9/CX OLEDS. Everything you want, for much lower price than an equivalent (that doesn't yet exist) PC monitor. There are some negatives, such as the need to prevent burn in by using common sense (not leaving a static image on for hours etc), though the price of the CX48 means you can buy two of them compared to an equivalent PC monitor.
 
Dave2150 said:
PC 'gaming' monitors are now complete crap IMO, simply due to them being (relatively) low volume, compared to TV manufacturing volume.

For gaming monitors, there's a great demand for a 32"-40" IPS 4k monitor, with HDR1000, 144Hz, HDMI 2.1 etc. These don't exist yet, and when they do, they'll likely be £2000-£3000+, judging by the premium Asus commanded with their first 4k 27" high refresh rate monitor. You'll also have the horrible build quality, horrible quality control, including black light bleed.

Thankfully, the new console generation are predicted to sell hundreds of millions of units, meaning there's a big demand for such displays in TV's, hence why LG stepped up and released the C9/CX OLEDS. Everything you want, for much lower price than an equivalent (that doesn't yet exist) PC monitor. There are some negatives, such as the need to prevent burn in by using common sense (not leaving a static image on for hours etc), though the price of the CX48 means you can buy two of them compared to an equivalent PC monitor.
Click to expand...

So on launch the 27 inch 144hz was £1999 yet the 48 inch OLED at 4k 120hz is £1500??? Justify that anyone? You can get a 32 inch 4k tv cheaper than a 27 inch 1440p monitor. I said back when 27 inch first arrived the prices were stupidly unfair and no one listened every day now you see new spec me 27 inch 1440p. You reap what you sow if you give cash for poor quality displays and dont send them back or just refuse to buy then you are encouraging it.

Im not buying 27inch until the price is in line with TV and i wont be buying OLED for about two years also after reading that thread on the issues.
 
snips86x said:
I have to agree with this. I upgraded my 27" to a 35" curved and man, such a difference. Can totally see why people go for the 38/49" options.
Click to expand...

It looks like fisheye though? When i watched a review of one i realized a lot of ultrawide has fisheye effect and curved seems to make it worse? This was just from YT i never owned one but dread now when ultrawide curved goes mainstream.


Id be out the door asap. And if it was 49inch it would in my mind be so large i would he sitting so far back the curve would be too far away and be irrelevant and look stupid. Am i wrong?
 
Rofflay said:
It looks like fisheye though? When i watched a review of one i realized a lot of ultrawide has fisheye effect and curved seems to make it worse? This was just from YT i never owned one but dread now when ultrawide curved goes mainstream.

Id be out the door asap. And if it was 49inch it would in my mind be so large i would he sitting so far back the curve would be too far away and be irrelevant and look stupid. Am i wrong?
Click to expand...

I've never tried anything over my 35", just suggesting I can see the appeal.

I'd never actually thought of the fisheye effect, maybe @JediFragger can chime in, he's the resident monitor wh**e :D
I've personally never had anything like that on mine but I could see why it would appear that way.
 
snips86x said:
I've never tried anything over my 35", just suggesting I can see the appeal.

I'd never actually thought of the fisheye effect, maybe @JediFragger can chime in, he's the resident monitor wh**e :D
I've personally never had anything like that on mine but I could see why it would appear that way.
Click to expand...


I think it does, And on Ultrawide i would need a low FOV as theres also videos where it looks stretched and not natural on the sides. Maybe these people just did not adjust the FOV or got greedy but theres something wrong with the extreme sides of ultrawide.
 
nlel1975 said:
I prefer to stay Full HD, UHD 4K the standard sizes at 16:9. These ultra wide monitors just stretch things out.
Click to expand...

I think that would depend on FoV. I have yet to experience this.

Rofflay said:
I think it does, And on Ultrawide i would need a low FOV as theres also videos where it looks stretched and not natural on the sides. Maybe these people just did not adjust the FOV or got greedy but theres something wrong with the extreme sides of ultrawide.
Click to expand...

WoW, for example, does make things look stretched but if you don't over do it, it's pretty nice.
 
Grantelicious said:
The problem with the G7 is it’s 1440p and 27 inch.... not good enough. It needs to be 4K or you can see the pixels and it’s so ugly. I look at my iMac at work and it’s like a phone screen it is so good. I’m just surprised on PC everyone goes on about Graphics Cards, but who cares when the games look worse than on a phone or console. Because you’re playing on a crappy Monitor and they’re playing on a lab OLED, even Samsung’s TVs look better with the FALD.

The G7 has a form of local dimming and it sucks, why? Why can’t they replicate what they do on their TVs? There are few zones and you can see them turning on and off, it’s horrible. Also if the monitor is tilted in slightly the wrong angle, it’s all washed out. You have to have it tilting slightly up and dead on.
Click to expand...
I totally agree, it's sad. There is total stagnation in terms of image quality in the monitor market which must be hurting the monitor review sites as it's all quite boring bar a few ludicrously expensive GSync Ultimate monitors. I'm waiting for high quality HDR at ~£500, until then I'm not interested. How many years will this take do you think?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom