Monitor and Graphics Card

[mcslemon]

Hi,

I've recently bought a Samsung 22 inch wide screen monitor for my partner who is trying to start up a web design company and am a touch disappointed with it.. One of the things the monitor was bought for was to be able to design logos etc, but we've been noticing that colour gradients in particular aren't displaying as they should. I've yet to calibrate the monitor with a screen spider, but if that fails to improve the picture, would a new graphics card help? There is currently a fairly basic Intel onboard graphics card in there at the moment.

Neil.

[CoffeeFiend]

A lot of the 22" LCDs are low-end garbage. Like 6 bit per pixel with dithering. Those are a big step down even from a CRT... No amount of color calibration is ever going to fix this. If you're going to do graphics, you just can't use a bad monitor. That's just like a carpenter showing up at work with a hammer made out of jell-o. There's no avoiding having decent quality basic tools for the job.

Also, a half-decent graphics card (no need for an expensive gamer's card) is a good investment. Not only newer OS'es make use of it (Aero Glass), but graphic apps as well e.g. Photoshop CS4. You can get something "good enough" for like $30 anyways.

[mcslemon]

Thanks for the info... as I thought.

Colleague of mine has just pointed me to LaCie!

http://www.lacie.com/uk/products/product.htm?pid=11093

Better start saving!!

[CoffeeFiend]

Bah. LaCie is usually overpriced to begin with. And in this case, it's vastly overpriced, even for most graphics use...

Some of the better TN panels are good enough for most graphics tasks, but MVA/PVA displays are nicer overall. And if you really have the buget, then get a S-IPS based LCD or such.

This is better in several ways (besides being bigger), at 1/3 of the price. Personally, I'd even take this one over the LaCie (same size too), even if it only costs like 1/6 as much. In fact, even the 30" version is noticeably cheaper (a pair of those better 30" Ultrasharps wouldn't cost much more than a single 24" LaCie). So many ways to look at it... The price difference between the much cheaper 30" Ultrasharp and the lesser 24" LaCie would pay for a Cintiq 12WX tablet... Or an extra large Intuos4 (22" diagonal!) and several accessories with it. I'd question the sanity of anyone who'd take the lesser 24" over a great 30" LCD and a high-end tablet too! There's plenty of other ways to spend the extra money too (lots of coffee , computer upgrades, storage space, better office furniture, office supplies, advertising for your business, etc)

Anyhow. One doesn't need a super-high end LCD for basic graphics work. It just has not to be a really low end POS. Much like the carpenter doesn't need a gold-plated DeWalt hammer encrusted with diamonds, it just has not to be made out of Jell-O. Or just like the local pizza delivery guy doesn't need a Ferrari, just a reliable car (i.e. good enough tools).

[mcslemon]

Cool, cheers for the Dell links; they are slightly more affordable!

Think is shows that consumers in general don't seem to care that what they are buying is a step back from the CRT days.. same story with LCD TV's... some are really awful! But hey that's probably another thread somewhere else!

Thanks again for the info, it's been most useful.

[Octopuss]

Hm. 2.5 years ago I bought Syncmaster 215TW and it is just perfect. I am not Photoshop professional or something, but the colors are good, the image is sharp etc. Really no problems at all no matter what I do. It cost a lot back then, though - about $800 with today's exchange rate.

[CoffeeFiend]

Hm. 2.5 years ago I bought Syncmaster 215TW and it is just perfect. I am not Photoshop professional or something, but the colors are good, the image is sharp etc. Really no problems at all no matter what I do. It cost a lot back then, though - about $800 with today's exchange rate.

That's a S-PVA panel, not a cheapo 6 bit TN panel, of course it looks good. They don't even compare.

Nowadays, people want cheap, and as large as possible. That usually means using low-end panels, and severely over-driving them to make the specs look good. So older quality LCDs looking far better isn't surprising at all.

I'm still primarily using my BenQ FP241W (P-MVA panel) which also works great (including pro photo/gfx work -- as in, part of what I do for a living). Was about $700 CAD when I bought it a couple years ago (including taxes, delivery with insurance, 0 dead pixel warranty and everything else)

[Zenskas]

Sorry to hijack this thread, but CoffeeFiend seems to know whats he is talking about so while I'm here what do you think of my monitor "Samsung SyncMaster 940BW Plus"? As far as vs CRT monitors? It's got a 3 year zero dead pixel warranty so I thought it would hopefully last a bit with no problems.

Edited July 14, 2009 by Zenskas

[CoffeeFiend]

what do you think of my monitor "Samsung SyncMaster 940BW Plus"

Very much depends on what you're going to do with it... Gaming (response time matters a lot to these folks seemingly), watch movies or do AV editing (then it becomes black levels, 1080p or better, etc), graphics work (resolution, size, gamut, accuracy, viewing angles, even backlight, ...) Different folks have different needs.

Some people can't seemingly live with anything but the absolute lowest response times (which matters very, very little to me) and are perfectly happy with absolutely horrible viewing angles -- and the color shift and brightness changes that comes with it (that definitely wouldn't last an hour on my desk).

As far as vs CRT monitors?

Hmm, I'd have to call it a tie. Each one wins in different categories (LCD for brightness, CRT for viewing angles and no color shifts, etc), although which of those matter to you might be completely different than those that matter to me. Kind of hard to pronounce a clear winner for someone else's use.

[Zenskas]

Its mainly just everyday use (internet, word), gaming (I'm plenty happy with 5ms response time and never see ghosting) as well as very light photo and graphics work. Do you know what sort of a panel it uses? It has a very sharp picture when facing it directly and I do not look at it from different angles.

Edited July 14, 2009 by Zenskas

[CoffeeFiend]

Its mainly just everyday use (internet, word)

Anything will do for that basically (including those awful LCDs made from 6 bit TN panels)

gaming (I'm plenty happy with 5ms response time and never see ghosting)

Well, if you're happy about it there, you know better than I do (I think I may have played Chess Titans once or twice last month, and that's about the only gaming I've done).

as well as very light photo and graphics work.

Most people who do casual photo/gfx work are reasonably happy with a LCD made from a decent TN panel (lots of them are happy with really crappy LCDs too, and don't notice they're using 6 bit TN panels because of the dithering). One just doesn't need much of a LCD to crop a picture and other simple things.

Anways. It uses a plain old TN panel (8 bit, not the uber-cheap 6 bit kind). The resolution and size is good enough for most people (although bigger LCDs are dropping in price very quickly -- my usual place had a 23" LCD with nearly identical specs for $180 CAD last week). As for thew viewing angles thing, that's a big issue as far as I'm concerned (160 deg on yours -- not that those specs ever reflect reality), but the problem is amplified as the monitor size goes up... Still, if you move around, or have to be more than 1 person looking at it, it could be rather problematic. Then again, you say it's not an issue for you so no worries.

[Zenskas]

Well, if you're happy about it there, you know better than I do (I think I may have played Chess Titans once or twice last month, and that's about the only gaming I've done).

Most people who do casual photo/gfx work are reasonably happy with a LCD made from a decent TN panel (lots of them are happy with really crappy LCDs too, and don't notice they're using 6 bit TN panels because of the dithering). One just doesn't need much of a LCD to crop a picture and other simple things.

Anways. It uses a plain old TN panel (8 bit, not the uber-cheap 6 bit kind). The resolution and size is good enough for most people (although bigger LCDs are dropping in price very quickly -- my usual place had a 23" LCD with nearly identical specs for $180 CAD last week). As for thew viewing angles thing, that's a big issue as far as I'm concerned (160 deg on yours -- not that those specs ever reflect reality), but the problem is amplified as the monitor size goes up... Still, if you move around, or have to be more than 1 person looking at it, it could be rather problematic. Then again, you say it's not an issue for you so no worries.

So its not too bad then

Yeah only ever one person looking at it and the picture and brightness is always spot on. I will probably get a 22 or 24 incher next though and aim for a quality panel.

For gamers though, a low response is very important! At a LAN party I had not long ago one of my gamer friends brought along a 17 inch Dell LCD he just bought to replace his old 17 inch CRT. He did not know the response time of it and said it was cheap. Viewing the desktop looked fine with a very clear, colorful picture. As soon as COD4 was fired up and we looked at the ghosting that was happening we were so desperate we put him on an 11 year old 15 inch CRT running at 800x600!!!

Edited July 15, 2009 by Zenskas