markf
05-26-2006, 11:12 PM
For some time now I've been thinking about getting a new monitor. Boring subject for many, yes, but I think this is a question which seems to pop up again and again. I've searched through this forum for answers, but didn't find anything concrete.
People would often say that their monitors looks great, they were very happy, they loved this brand or this brand, but nobody ever said WHY their monitor was better than any other. It's all very subjective, and people tend to get attached to their decisions. You don't hear many people doubting their purchases unless the situation is really bad :-)
So I decided to do some research on this subject, and hopefully leave behind some material on this forum which others may find useful when making this difficult decision.
Before I go on, here are a couple of threads I managed to find where some issues were discussed and a brief summary of what was said:
http://www.graphicdesignforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13033
Discussion of monitors on a budget. A few useful links to review sites, some personal brand preferences.
http://www.graphicdesignforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13323
Discussion of CRT vs LCD, talks about football for a while and then some people sing the praises of the Apple cinema display.
Anyway - here is the result of my rather amateurish research:
General consensus is that CRT is better than LCD for graphic design work. While this may be a given there are many reasons why someone might feel that they would prefer an LCD. They may have limited desk space, work in an unairconditioned environment, be concerned about power consumption, work with many screens, etc.
In my case I use three screens as a single desktop, I can't fit 3 CRTs onto my desk!
So if you are reading this thread you probably are totally overwhelmed by the choice of LCD screens out there. Let's try and get to heart of the matter...
The prospective buyer of an LCD screen needs to be aware of the type of panel they are buying. Unfortunately this is seldom stated in the product literature. Most buyers are presented with a contrast ratio like 500:1, a brightness rating like 250cd/m2 and a response time like 8ms. But which of these are important to a graphic designer? The answer is usually - NONE of them. Why?
As a graphic designer you are primarily concerned with accurate colours. Also important is colour contrast. An image which is showing the correct colours will look far more "contrasty" even though it is not. That 500:1 figure I mentioned earlier simply measures the darkest pixel to the lightest pixel - which isn't really that important when we talk about colour.
Brightness isn't usually a big factor for a designer, and response time is at the bottom of the list - this is more important for watching movies or playing games.
We need to understand that the TECHNOLOGY behind a given flat panel is very important for the graphic designer.
At this point you should check out this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TFT_LCD
(scroll down to "types")
A quick summary:
TN = Fast response times, poor viewing angle, poor colour, cheap. Perfect choice for gamers
MVA = Good viewing angle, high contrast, lower response times, less brightness, poor colour. Perhaps best for watching movies?
IPS (and S-IPS) = Much slower response times, high cost, poorer contrast and brightness, but the best colour reproduction.
I guess it comes as no surprise to learn that the best type for graphics professionals are also the least common and the most expensive.
Ok, so what does this mean? Shouldn't you just go and buy an Apple Cinema display like everyone says you should? Well.. maybe. I decided not to because I use three screens, and I just don't have the space for something that wide, not to mention the price tag! Since you've now learned about the different screen technologies the first question you will ask is "Does the Apple screen use IPS?" The answer is yes - it uses S-IPS, which is probably why graphics pros speak so highly of it. So the short answer is you probably can't go wrong with this screen.
However - there are other options. Look around the rather crowded LCD market for other screens. How will you know where to find the S-IPS screens? One clue is to look at the response times. Since we are seeing figures in the range of 2-8ms it will be easy to spot those screens which quote 20ms - these are most likely your S-IPS screens! Contrast and brightness also won't be fanstastic compared to all the others, and the price won't be cheap either!
I took at a look at my local market (Switzerland) to see which S-IPS screens were available to me. In the end I settled on the NEC LCD 1990SXi. The cost was the equivalent of around US$700. Checking out the specs showed that there were lots of options for changing the colour temperature and other adjustments that would make sense for a graphics professional. Such features are often missing on other LCD panels! This gave me the impression that NEC cared about the demands of the graphics professional (at least for this model).
I chose this model for my center screen, and then chose cheaper (MVA based) screens for my side screens - after all I only need to see good colour on one screen. The monitors haven't been delivered yet, so I'm eager to see the difference to my existing Samsung 171N screens which are over 3 years old. They've served me well, but they just don't cut the mustard with colour!
I hope this info was helpful to you and will help you made an informed and objective decision about the monitor you wish to buy. It narrowly helped me to avoid buying an LG monitor with a 1600:1 contrast ratio. I thought it must be good with so much contrast, but discovered at the last minute that it was a TN screen, and only had 6 bits per colour instead of 8.... Forewarned is forearmed...
People would often say that their monitors looks great, they were very happy, they loved this brand or this brand, but nobody ever said WHY their monitor was better than any other. It's all very subjective, and people tend to get attached to their decisions. You don't hear many people doubting their purchases unless the situation is really bad :-)
So I decided to do some research on this subject, and hopefully leave behind some material on this forum which others may find useful when making this difficult decision.
Before I go on, here are a couple of threads I managed to find where some issues were discussed and a brief summary of what was said:
http://www.graphicdesignforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13033
Discussion of monitors on a budget. A few useful links to review sites, some personal brand preferences.
http://www.graphicdesignforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13323
Discussion of CRT vs LCD, talks about football for a while and then some people sing the praises of the Apple cinema display.
Anyway - here is the result of my rather amateurish research:
General consensus is that CRT is better than LCD for graphic design work. While this may be a given there are many reasons why someone might feel that they would prefer an LCD. They may have limited desk space, work in an unairconditioned environment, be concerned about power consumption, work with many screens, etc.
In my case I use three screens as a single desktop, I can't fit 3 CRTs onto my desk!
So if you are reading this thread you probably are totally overwhelmed by the choice of LCD screens out there. Let's try and get to heart of the matter...
The prospective buyer of an LCD screen needs to be aware of the type of panel they are buying. Unfortunately this is seldom stated in the product literature. Most buyers are presented with a contrast ratio like 500:1, a brightness rating like 250cd/m2 and a response time like 8ms. But which of these are important to a graphic designer? The answer is usually - NONE of them. Why?
As a graphic designer you are primarily concerned with accurate colours. Also important is colour contrast. An image which is showing the correct colours will look far more "contrasty" even though it is not. That 500:1 figure I mentioned earlier simply measures the darkest pixel to the lightest pixel - which isn't really that important when we talk about colour.
Brightness isn't usually a big factor for a designer, and response time is at the bottom of the list - this is more important for watching movies or playing games.
We need to understand that the TECHNOLOGY behind a given flat panel is very important for the graphic designer.
At this point you should check out this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TFT_LCD
(scroll down to "types")
A quick summary:
TN = Fast response times, poor viewing angle, poor colour, cheap. Perfect choice for gamers
MVA = Good viewing angle, high contrast, lower response times, less brightness, poor colour. Perhaps best for watching movies?
IPS (and S-IPS) = Much slower response times, high cost, poorer contrast and brightness, but the best colour reproduction.
I guess it comes as no surprise to learn that the best type for graphics professionals are also the least common and the most expensive.
Ok, so what does this mean? Shouldn't you just go and buy an Apple Cinema display like everyone says you should? Well.. maybe. I decided not to because I use three screens, and I just don't have the space for something that wide, not to mention the price tag! Since you've now learned about the different screen technologies the first question you will ask is "Does the Apple screen use IPS?" The answer is yes - it uses S-IPS, which is probably why graphics pros speak so highly of it. So the short answer is you probably can't go wrong with this screen.
However - there are other options. Look around the rather crowded LCD market for other screens. How will you know where to find the S-IPS screens? One clue is to look at the response times. Since we are seeing figures in the range of 2-8ms it will be easy to spot those screens which quote 20ms - these are most likely your S-IPS screens! Contrast and brightness also won't be fanstastic compared to all the others, and the price won't be cheap either!
I took at a look at my local market (Switzerland) to see which S-IPS screens were available to me. In the end I settled on the NEC LCD 1990SXi. The cost was the equivalent of around US$700. Checking out the specs showed that there were lots of options for changing the colour temperature and other adjustments that would make sense for a graphics professional. Such features are often missing on other LCD panels! This gave me the impression that NEC cared about the demands of the graphics professional (at least for this model).
I chose this model for my center screen, and then chose cheaper (MVA based) screens for my side screens - after all I only need to see good colour on one screen. The monitors haven't been delivered yet, so I'm eager to see the difference to my existing Samsung 171N screens which are over 3 years old. They've served me well, but they just don't cut the mustard with colour!
I hope this info was helpful to you and will help you made an informed and objective decision about the monitor you wish to buy. It narrowly helped me to avoid buying an LG monitor with a 1600:1 contrast ratio. I thought it must be good with so much contrast, but discovered at the last minute that it was a TN screen, and only had 6 bits per colour instead of 8.... Forewarned is forearmed...