Is there a monitor out there that actually has GOOD blacks, colors, etc and doesn't cost a fortune? - Hardware & Software

I ask because while I am not in the need for a new monitor at the moment, I am definatly looking. My current monitor is this, except silver: [url]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009121[/url] I've had it for about 4 years or so now, and I'm interested in upgrading, so naturally I've been looking. Here's the problem: I don't have a single store near me that actively show off monitors, and the ones that do don't exactly have much of a selection. I basically have to go by word of mouth alone. I'm also finding it impossibly hard to find the best monitor I can find for the money. I really only desire a monitor if I can be sure it's a decent upgrade on all fronts. While 1080p/1200p is nice, and as is a 22-24" screen, far more important to me is improved picture quality. You could say I'm a little spoiled by my ZuneHD's OLED screen, and my TF's IPS one. That said though, it seems like at this time, its impossible to find a monitor that covers all bases without being over $1000 in price, which is way over my price bracket. I've looked into a confusing array of IPS monitors and seemed to pick out these two as ideal: [url]http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003QTKV9W/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&seller=[/url] [url]http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003D1CFHY/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=pchahe-20&linkCode=as2&camp=217145&creative=399369&creativeASIN=B003D1CFHY[/url] However upon looking into it, apparently IPS produces rather terrible contrast ratios and don't have deep blacks, which is the exact opposite of what I thought. To me, the ability of a black to appear as black as possible is very important to picture quality. But it doesn't seem like this is too possible with IPS, which are apparently the best of the best these days. I also don't understand how to get a monitor with the best contrast possible. I keep seeing confusing numbers of 5000:1 contrast, all the way up to 10,000,000:1 dynamic contrast, except aparently dynamic is "fake" and contrast ratios don't mean shit? Why? how can I know I'm getting a monitor with great contrast picture quality then? There's all this talk about LED's, but apprently LED's actually make for a worse picture? Then there is 3D, which while I personally can enjoy such a thing very much, I don't feel like the tech is quite there yet for the best experience and for the price. Especially since they can only currently do the tech on lower-quality monitors anyways. UGH! I just want to cut through the bullshit. I want the best monitor for the money (i.e. under $500). But I can't make sense of all the shit being thrown around. I want blacks that look black, great colors and picture quality, etc. Is this possible? Should I just give up and wait 10 years for the market to mature more?

crt is the only thing that has everything you want that's affordable and available, but you know, "it's crt"

IPS at any monitor size isn't really cheap, but you can pick up a nice 21.5 inch LG monitor for just under $200 [URL]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824005230[/URL] Really though, any screen of quality isn't going to be extremely cheap. Never really understood why people freak out about IPS vs TN; the only time I really notice a difference is when they're compared side-by-side. Either way, keep in mind that no consumer-ready monitor (yet) will accurately reproduce truly deep blacks and amazing photo quality - IPS is probably the best, affordable solution in this case.

[QUOTE=KorJax;33094293]I ask because while I am not in the need for a new monitor at the moment, I am definatly looking. My current monitor is this, except silver: [url]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009121[/url] I've had it for about 4 years or so now, and I'm interested in upgrading, so naturally I've been looking. Here's the problem: I don't have a single store near me that actively show off monitors, and the ones that do don't exactly have much of a selection. I basically have to go by word of mouth alone. I'm also finding it impossibly hard to find the best monitor I can find for the money. I really only desire a monitor if I can be sure it's a decent upgrade on all fronts. While 1080p/1200p is nice, and as is a 22-24" screen, far more important to me is improved picture quality. You could say I'm a little spoiled by my ZuneHD's OLED screen, and my TF's IPS one. That said though, it seems like at this time, its impossible to find a monitor that covers all bases without being over $1000 in price, which is way over my price bracket. I've looked into a confusing array of IPS monitors and seemed to pick out these two as ideal: [url]http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003QTKV9W/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&seller=[/url] [url]http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003D1CFHY/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=pchahe-20&linkCode=as2&camp=217145&creative=399369&creativeASIN=B003D1CFHY[/url] However upon looking into it, apparently IPS produces rather terrible contrast ratios and don't have deep blacks, which is the exact opposite of what I thought. To me, the ability of a black to appear as black as possible is very important to picture quality. But it doesn't seem like this is too possible with IPS, which are apparently the best of the best these days. I also don't understand how to get a monitor with the best contrast possible. I keep seeing confusing numbers of 5000:1 contrast, all the way up to 10,000,000:1 dynamic contrast, except aparently dynamic is "fake" and contrast ratios don't mean shit? Why? how can I know I'm getting a monitor with great contrast picture quality then? There's all this talk about LED's, but apprently LED's actually make for a worse picture? Then there is 3D, which while I personally can enjoy such a thing very much, I don't feel like the tech is quite there yet for the best experience and for the price. Especially since they can only currently do the tech on lower-quality monitors anyways. UGH! I just want to cut through the bullshit. I want the best monitor for the money (i.e. under $500). But I can't make sense of all the shit being thrown around. I want blacks that look black, great colors and picture quality, etc. Is this possible? Should I just give up and wait 10 years for the market to mature more?[/QUOTE] Your post is a bit fragmented so I'm gonna try to respond to as much as possible. Contrast ratios as written in specifications are rough guideline numbers and more often than not a big load of marketing bullshit and practically irrelevant to the performance of a monitor. LED backlighting giving worse picture quality used to hold merit but is nowadays just a myth. Color fidelity is near as makes no difference as good as traditional CCFL backlighting, if not better. The Dell U2311H is a nice monitor if you want good quality at a budget, it's since been surpassed by the Dell U2312HM which has a newer panel and LED backlighting. I have the U2311H and while it's great (absolutely amazing compared to my previous TN monitors) there is quite a bit of ghosting, it's nothing you notice immediately unless you've used a 2ms TN panel before but when you notice it, you can't un-notice it. It's quite a problem for gaming as something like small fast scrolling text becomes basically unreadable and things in very tense and fast situations tend to blur too much making you lose focus sometimes, it's a bit hard to explain if you've not experienced it. I heard the U2312HM has improved input lag but I haven't used it myself so I can't say if the ghosting has improved. The U2312HM is on the lower side of $300 and if you value quality over gaming performance it's a great buy. Not sure what you mean about the blacks though, it's not something I've ever noticed as a problem for me personally.

Thanks for the inputs. I used to think contrast ratio = black levels, but apparently not. I have an OLED display on my ZuneHD, which as far as I'm aware has the deepest possible blacks in any display you can get. It's really great, because there is no backlighting (each pixel is an OLED diode), when something is black on the screen, it's 100% black - the pixels just turn off. This produces really deep rich colors that really pop. Unfortuantly, you simply can't get OLED tech outside of the small gadget market, because its apparently exponentually expensive the larger you go with these displays. While I don't want to be too much of a pefectionist, my ideal monitor is one that's capable of as deep black levels as you can get with panel tech. I feel this isn't all that possible though, and that I might be asking too much.

If you want good blacks stay away from IPS. A high gloss TN is probably the closest you'll get without going OLED. IPS's excel at color accuracy and showing the most colors possible. Contrast ratios aren't amazing, but are decent.

I just hope we get affordable OLED monitors soon

You should go with an IPS monitor for accurate color, I wouldn't go with Dell monitors, I had one and after using a pro color calibrator it still looked like shit and was totally wrong when I printed a photo.

If you want deep, deep blacks, and excellent color reproduction, VA panels can offer you that. I bought one a few months ago for watching movies and photo editing, and I can tell you it is exactly like an IPS panel minus the terrible contrast ratios and the annoying IPS glow (where on dark backgrounds the edges will glow). Beware, these monitors sacrifice response time, being slower than IPS, so I would NOT recommend for gaming at all whatsoever. I learned this the hard way, when playing CSS. Lets just say I was on LSD. They're not too terribly expensive either, so I would recommend one seeing you don't want your wallet eaten alive. As for LED, CCFL produces a slightly better color gamut, but not that much better. Most LED monitors are "edge lit" so they tend to bleed around the edges quite badly most of the time. Some of the more expensive ones are backlit LEDs, so they have much better black levels. It is imperative that you do research on the exact monitor you're looking at. Most specifications are bullshit and people end up finding out the hard way. I would look all around the internet on what's a decent affordable VA panel. [url]www.tftcentral.co.uk[/url] does reviews on monitors, mostly the ones which are actually good and worth spending any amount of money on.

Thank you for your input! VA sounds great but sadly I do game alot, so unless there somehow exist a VA panel that has decent input times (less than 10ms) then I'll have to pass on that :\

[QUOTE=KorJax;33118045]Thank you for your input! VA sounds great but sadly I do game alot, so unless there somehow exist a VA panel that has decent input times (less than 10ms) then I'll have to pass on that :\[/QUOTE] The response time is the issue with VA, input lag depends on the model. VA panels tend to be slower performing than others. For pixel performance: TN>IPS>VA For color: IPS>VA>TN For contrast: TN>VA>IPS I owned a Viewsonic 20" VX2025wm a few years ago and it was a M-PVA and blacks were pretty good, but my HP 25" 1080p TN monitor has better blacks than my 30" I would go for a large TN LED backlit. As far as Dynamic contrast, the number is fake, but the effect is not. But it's not accurate. Basically it will brighten bright images and darken dark images. And for most people it's super annoying.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsIaky2PDI8&feature=relmfu[/url] Linus unboxes a VA panel. Check it out.

[QUOTE=Brt5470;33118211]The response time is the issue with VA, input lag depends on the model. VA panels tend to be slower performing than others. For pixel performance: TN>IPS>VA [b]For color: IPS>VA>TN For contrast: TN>VA>IPS[/b] I owned a Viewsonic 20" VX2025wm a few years ago and it was a M-PVA and blacks were pretty good, but my HP 25" 1080p TN monitor has better blacks than my 30" I would go for a large TN LED backlit. As far as Dynamic contrast, the number is fake, but the effect is not. But it's not accurate. Basically it will brighten bright images and darken dark images. And for most people it's super annoying.[/QUOTE] What? No, it's Color: IPS=VA>TN Contrast: VA>TN=IPS I don't know how on earth you could get better black levels with a TN monitor, either the VA panel was shit or the TN was made out of gold or something or the brightness was different. VA panels usually measure higher than their advertised contrast level, most of the time 3000:1 is measured around 3500:1 depending on the brightness. For the OP, some VA panels are tolerable with response times for gaming. Again, it really depends on what game it is and the model. Some monitors are decent with minimum ghosting and overshoot artifacts. Some are absolutely horrible. [editline]4th November 2011[/editline] The Samsung F2380 is a decent VA panel with minimum ghosting, and it's got really good reviews. It's 300 bucks, not expensive, but not cheap. I would grab it if I were you, it's not too bad for gaming. You can always just buy a TN panel if the motion blur is really that noticeable. Wouldn't bother with the BenQ, the one I got was the EW2420, but the default color settings were crap, and again, the ghosting was just, ugh, terrifying. I assume the VW is the same panel, just thinner bezel?

I'd value color quality over deep blacks TBH

Why is that? I feel like after a certain point, deep blacks and good contrast will do more for color and picture quality than a monitor being able to simply render more colors (that won't nessicarily be visible as I doubt too many people create content for outside of a TN's color spectrum). These are all baseless assumptions though. I really wish I could just see the different monitor types right next to each other but nobody does stuff like that at stores for some odd reason.

This place is still selling a bunch of P1230's for a good price (the P stands for professional) I just bought one recently from him and it works great, only slight signs of aging (picture is slightly dim) but who knows maybe some aren't dimming as much. Keep in mind you might get faint horizontal shadows due to it being a Trinitron tube (the design of the aperture grille can cause very faint horizontal line-shadows, but really only noticeable 'sometimes'.) Also this fucker is heavy, over 100lbs. [editline]4th November 2011[/editline] [url]http://www.ebay.com/itm/HP-P1230-22-Inch-Flat-Display-CRT-Monitor-P9613A-/170701340525?pt=Computer_Monitors&hash=item27be97bf6d[/url]

[url]http://reviews.cnet.com/lcd-monitors/benq-ew2420/4505-3174_7-34469435.html#reviewPage1[/url] Anyone got any thoughts on that? I can probably live with the fact that its glossy (I certainly did back in my crt days), seems to get favorable reviews... but only problem is that I can't seem to find many first hand reviews of it beyond cnet.

[QUOTE=paul simon;33110025]I just hope we get affordable OLED monitors soon[/QUOTE] OLED monitors won't reach consumer hands for a long time. They still have high failure rates and the burn in is still an issue. Having completely static elements like the windows task bar would kill an OLED display with the current amount of burn in they have right now.

[QUOTE=garrynohome;33137409]OLED monitors won't reach consumer hands for a long time. They still have high failure rates and the burn in is still an issue. Having completely static elements like the windows task bar would kill an OLED display with the current amount of burn in they have right now.[/QUOTE] If I don't remember completely incorrectly, LG plans to ship the first ~30" OLED TV's in 2013 but they'll most certainly be insanely expensive, my bet is it'll be till at least 2015 if not much later before OLED monitors are viable for the average consumer, and even then probably quite expensive.

Can't wait for OLED monitors. They have an instant response time (0.01 ms) so no ghosting bullshit. Insane contrast ratio and deep inky blacks. Colors will be just as accurate as IPS, if they can figure out how to stop the blue led from degrading faster than the rest. It's really too bad they are so fragile at the moment, being vulnerable to oxygen, water, UV light. Guess you just can't win can ya.

[QUOTE=KorJax;33129358][url]http://reviews.cnet.com/lcd-monitors/benq-ew2420/4505-3174_7-34469435.html#reviewPage1[/url] Anyone got any thoughts on that? I can probably live with the fact that its glossy (I certainly did back in my crt days), seems to get favorable reviews... but only problem is that I can't seem to find many first hand reviews of it beyond cnet.[/QUOTE] Anyone?

why are you so dead set on dropping a shitload of cash on a monitor that will underperform compared to this: [url]http://cincinnati.craigslist.org/sys/2622435484.html[/url] $25 + gas money took 5 seconds to find, the least you could do is drive over and have a look at it before you waste $250+ and yes that's probably the best monitor for your budget (tftcentral confirms this) [editline]5th November 2011[/editline] and please don't tell me your research consists of searching "x review" into google and clicking on the cnet links [editline]5th November 2011[/editline] I like how you sit in the thread for half an hour and then instead of spending that time coming up with a response, you rate dumb and leave hahahahaha why do I bother, have fun wasting your money on inferior shit

[QUOTE=chipset;33140331]If I don't remember completely incorrectly, LG plans to ship the first ~30" OLED TV's in 2013 but they'll most certainly be insanely expensive, my bet is it'll be till at least 2015 if not much later before OLED monitors are viable for the average consumer, and even then probably quite expensive.[/QUOTE] LG is all talk. There's still the burn in issue and the fast degradation of the blue subpixels. If there's anyone who's going to solve the issues it's going to be Samsung. Samsung has huge R&D going into OLED tech, a huge amount more than LG does. LG has their money invested in improving IPS tech which will inevitably be replaced. The reason why Samsung has only put the tech in mobile devices is because the panels don't have the type of lifespan that a consumer would need from a television. People buy new phones every couple of years. People can keep the same TV from anywhere between 5-15 years.

[QUOTE=Odellus;33143578]why are you so dead set on dropping a shitload of cash on a monitor that will underperform compared to this: [url]http://cincinnati.craigslist.org/sys/2622435484.html[/url] $25 + gas money took 5 seconds to find, the least you could do is drive over and have a look at it before you waste $250+ and yes that's probably the best monitor for your budget (tftcentral confirms this) [editline]5th November 2011[/editline] and please don't tell me your research consists of searching "x review" into google and clicking on the cnet links [editline]5th November 2011[/editline] I like how you stalk the user list half an hour and then instead of spending that time , you rate dumb and leave hahahahaha why do I bother, have fun wasting your money on inferior shit[/QUOTE] I like how you sit in the thread for half an hour looking at the user list waiting for me to respond (ever think that just because a tab is on a page doesn't mean I'm currently doing anything with it?) and thinking how clever you are for suggesting a CRT monitor in a thread that's clearly oriented towards me not being interested in a giant 100lb box on my thin glass desk so I can finally achieve my day old dream of having a shitty 4:3 resolution picture that would be suicide for production and gaming and not to mention the annoying as hell white noise that I can't stand. I could give a rats ass about how much better picture quality per pixel is with CRT, I'm not getting a CRT

[QUOTE=KorJax;33144985]I like how you sit in the thread for half an hour looking at the user list waiting for me to respond (ever think that just because a tab is on a page doesn't mean I'm currently doing anything with it?) and thinking how clever you are for suggesting a CRT monitor in a thread that's clearly oriented towards me not being interested in a giant 100lb box on my thin glass desk so I can finally achieve my day old dream of having a shitty 4:3 resolution picture that would be suicide for production and gaming and not to mention the annoying as hell white noise that I can't stand. I could give a rats ass about how much better picture quality per pixel is with CRT, I'm not getting a CRT[/QUOTE] The ignore list is your friend.

[QUOTE=KorJax;33144985]I like how you sit in the thread for half an hour looking at the user list waiting for me to respond (ever think that just because a tab is on a page doesn't mean I'm currently doing anything with it?) and thinking how clever you are for suggesting a CRT monitor in a thread that's clearly oriented towards me not being interested in a giant 100lb box on my thin glass desk so I can finally achieve my day old dream of having a shitty 4:3 resolution picture that would be suicide for production and gaming and not to mention the annoying as hell white noise that I can't stand. I could give a rats ass about how much better picture quality per pixel is with CRT, I'm not getting a CRT[/QUOTE] you realize CRTs can do way more resolutions than LCDs and support any aspect ratio right what the fuck is white noise [editline]5th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=lavacano;33145033]The ignore list is your friend.[/QUOTE] your loss

[quote]shitty 4:3 resolution picture[/quote] Funny because my CRT downstairs goes up to 2560x1600. Enjoy paying $1200 for an LCD monitor that does the same and still has a lower refresh rate. [quote] I could give a rats ass about how much better picture quality per pixel is with CRT[/quote] So you made a thread asking about what monitor would give good black levels and colors, but when told the truth you freak out and get mad that the facts aren't what you want to hear. That makes...no sense at all. Perhaps a thread named "Tell me that TN panel LCDs give the best colors and black levels" would have been more suitable. What you're doing is using false evidence to try and convince yourself that buying a P-IPS monitor is the best way to get high resolutions and good colors/contrast.

[QUOTE=garrynohome;33145432]Funny because my CRT downstairs goes up to 2560x1600. Enjoy paying $1200 for an LCD monitor that does the same and still has a lower refresh rate. So you made a thread asking about what monitor would give good black levels and colors, but when told the truth you freak out and get mad that the facts aren't what you want to hear. That makes...no sense at all. Perhaps a thread named "Tell me that TN panel LCDs give the best colors and black levels" would have been more suitable. What you're doing is using false evidence to try and convince yourself that buying a P-IPS monitor is the best way to get high resolutions and good colors/contrast.[/QUOTE] hey wanna fuck?

or you can just be like normal people and chill out about contrast ratios Seriously, I've had my TN 1680x1050 monitor since about 2007, when it was $250, and I'm finding it hard to give a shit that the blacks aren't "deep" or the colors aren't "vivid" I mean, call me stupid but if you just get a nice quality $200 TN panel you're going to save yourself the hassle of trying to find a super high contrast, vivid monitor that in the end will have only so much of a noticeable difference

[QUOTE=Protocol7;33145616]or you can just be like normal people and chill out about contrast ratios Seriously, I've had my TN 1680x1050 monitor since about 2007, when it was $250, and I'm finding it hard to give a shit that the blacks aren't "deep" or the colors aren't "vivid" I mean, call me stupid but if you just get a nice quality $200 TN panel you're going to save yourself the hassle of trying to find a super high contrast, vivid monitor that in the end will have only so much of a noticeable difference[/QUOTE] $200 on a tn is a gigantic waste of money