Static contrast ratio.

I finaly got my paycheck and am planning on buying a Samsung SyncMaster BX2450. (link: 24? High Performance LCD Monitor with LED Backlight BX2450 - Business - Monitors | SAMSUNG )
It says it has MEGA DCR (which gives the highest possble contrast ratios) but the static contrast ratio is only 1000: 1.
Can anyone tell me what this means? This led monitor seems like a great accesoire for long gaming days, but perhaps I should just get a normal monitor with a standard contrast (whatever its name may be, samsung calls it Dynamic, Philips calls it Smarcontrast) of 30-50k?

 

Try find something with the highest static contrast ratio.

MEGA DCR, Dynamic, Smarcontrast are all the same things (dynamic contrast which can make something that is supposed to look grey turn to black) messing with the colours of your screen.

Well, even if the static contrast ratios that they report are exaggerations, dynamic contrast is an outright lie.

 

Hm I just found an alternative, a samsung xl2370, which has a dynamic contrast of 5 mil and a static contrast of 3000:1.
Do you think this will be a big difference compared to my first choice? I don't want to pay 91€ more for an unnoticeble contrast ratio.

 

what about an Lg w2486L ? Every modern Lg monitor ive seen has a good sharp low pixel pitch panel and good contrast with a nice brightness. What about buying a television? im currently using a 32" Lg television and the pc looks fantastic on it.

i looked at that samsung lx2370 on the samsung website and it also says 1000:1 static contrast is the one you looked at a region specific model?

 

I'm not sure anymore, one site said it had a contrast of 3k to 1, another said its also 1k to 1.
But since the BX monitors are the newest generation of led monitors by samsung, and cost around 250-350€, couldn't I asume their contrast is just fine?

Also, the reason why I chose samsung is because its one of the most common brands here, you do not find many lg monitors here in Belgium atm. And even so, if LG's televisions/monitors are of the same quality as their phones, I'll think i'll pass (and I don't like their ugly logo, makes the entire look of the monitor look like a cheap toy).

 

lol i agree the lg logo is pretty ugly but like any logo it can easily be taken off . i cant say anything about lg phone quality but lg tvs and monitors have always been great to me. some places have a flexible return policy maybe you could test one out if you dont like it you can return for the samsung?


either way samsung from my experience is also a very good brand. the thing i dont like about samsung though is that they dont specify pixel pitch which is by far more important to me then contrast ratio. as for your underlined question yes i would just assume its just fine since that measurement is taken at optimal room scenarios. that measurement is a joke honestly. dynamic contrast ratio is pretty much a lie like stated above since the method that figure is taken from is really stupid and possibly even unrepeatable hell it might even just be a guess lol.

 

Since these led monitors are a fairly new product in the market (i'd say 80 or 90% of al screens that I can find in shops are still lcd) I think i'll wait it out for a litle while longer. This way prices may drop (350€ for a 24 inch screen is something I can afford, but is not worth it imo) and maybe there will be another generation led monitors by the time I get one, with hopefully a higher static contrast ratio. Afterall, these are only the first generations of led monitors.

Or do you guys think I could just aswell settle for a 23-24 lcd panel which will cost me €100 less? I can postphone my purchase as long as I want, but if there's no point I might aswell buy one now.
I have a choice between a p2370h ( SAMSUNG P2370H bij Vanden Borre : Ruime keuze, makkelijk vergelijken en kopen) which is a 23 inch and a p2450h ( SAMSUNG P2450H bij Vanden Borre : Ruime keuze, makkelijk vergelijken en kopen) which is 24 inch. The price difference is only 8 euros higher for the 24 inch, though it looks like a somewhat older design, i'd suspect it to be just as good?

 

LED is just the backlight, its still an lcd, just because it says LED does not automatically mean better. From what I heard Samsung screens are not that good, sure they make some good panels for other brands, samsung is pretty much my least favorite electronics brand that are not classified as junk.

LG and Philips used to team up to build panels, don´t know if they still do, they should be pretty good in general.

Benq makes some pretty good budget screens.

The best (by a WIIIIDE margin) are Eizo and NEC.

And forget about dynamic contrast, it doesn´t mean a thing, its just panel technobabble to fool people that have not done their homework.

There are several sites comparing screens, those are your first stop!

If you had more money to spend I would suggest you to buy whatever and a hardware calibrator, since you cannot calibrate "by eye" if you want accuracy. And no screens are good out of the box.

 

Research the panel used for the monitor and read reviews to see how they actually are since manufacturers are notorious for having BS figures.

Monitor Panel Search Database

 

Like sgogeta says, the static contrast rates manufacturers lists usually have little to do with contrast rates measured in the real world.

Acer H243HBbmid delivers very good contrast rates, even higher than S-IPS and S-PVA panels.

Here are some contrast rates of popular monitors: Hardware.info (checkerboard is the heaviest contrast benchmark)

Also check here:
Samsung SyncMaster XL2370 LCD Monitor reviews - CNET Reviews

 

I know led is just the backlight, and the reason I prefer it is because its so much brighter. If there's one thing I hate about my laptop screen, it the major reflectivenes and unsufficient brightnes.

I found a pretty good looking LG monitor ( LG W2453SQ-PF bij Vanden Borre : Ruime keuze, makkelijk vergelijken en kopen) for quite less money than any other samsung. The main reason why I don't like LG is that I read a Television guide a while ago in Power Unlimited, and I remember that screens from brands like panasonic and philips only start to lose colour quality after about 200-300.000 hours, while the ones from most other brands already start to lose colour quality after 30.000 hours which is a huge difference. I don't know about LG, but I don't think it was any of the good brands (neither was samsung if I recal correctly), but now you told me they work together with philips i'm starting to have doubts.
It also seems that LG has introduced quite a few new technologies (thinnest led tv for example) in the latest years so perhaps my mistrust of this brand isn't based on any found evidence anymore.

Another problem is the fact that the good brands which you just suggested (Eizo and NEC) are totaly unfamiliar to me, which means I will most likely not find them in any store in Belgium.

 

LG monitors are general consumer quality, nothing special and nothing wrong with it. Just like Samsung, Benq, and Acer lately.

If you want higher quality monitors you're going to need to spend more. What is your budget?

Dell and HP have professional lines with very good monitors. You can surely get them in Belgium.

 

I would prefer to spend 200, but if its really going to be worth it, I'm willing to spend 350-400€ (my budget is ten times that but I just want a decent price-quality ratio). Might even be €500-600 for a 27 inch monitor (but perhaps 24 inch is big enough?).

Basicly I just want a good monitor, my eyes are pretty messed up so I don't want any screen that will make them worse (like my current glossy laptopscreen). It doesn't have to be a professional monitor, it just needs good colours (no backlight bleeding, otherwise I would have chosen an Acer h233h monitor which gives the most bang for the buck), be very bright and have a fast reaction time for gaming.
I'm planning on buying an aditional desktop and a ps3 in the near future so it will be used for: computer tasks, Computer work & pc games, and Console gaming. Not sure if I need led, but since I will be using this monitor for a very long time and for various purposes, why not go all the way right?

 

Well since you want fast gaming the IPS and PVA panels are no option.

I'd go for this Acer: Acer H243HBBMID 24 TFT-BREEDSCHERM (2MS) België

It's 205 in Belgium. Judging by the measurements it's the best TN panel you can buy. Reaction time is extremely good too.

 

QFT!

IPS and PVS panels suffer ghosting and poor pixel response times. Phil has certainly picked a good one with the Acer... it's got great numbers! I've seen other places with that monitor going for over $300. I think the major thing I like about the LED backlit panels is their even backlighting. Panels over 20" that aren't LED usually have issues with back-light evenness across their entirety, but that issue only tends to show with the lower quality/priced large LCD's.

Another MAJOR thing to look at is what is the seller's panel guarantee? I think NewEgg has an 8 dead pixel bar you must hit before you can claim it defective for a replacement. Dell has a 2 pixel guarantee on most of theirs, but IDK about anywhere else.

 

I´m sure you can find Eizo monitors in belgium too, they make monitrs for photo editing and the medical industy primarily, the good ones cost around 2-4000€ and their cheapest ones cost around 2-300, I don´t know if they are good value the cheap ones, but their more expensive ones should be very good. They are of very high quality in general and the concistency is probably the best in the business. They make some 10 bit monitors with high gamut coverage (96%), 16:10 format. EIZO / FlexScan Monitors

Some IPS panels can be usable for gaming from what I´ve read.

Dell have new IPS´es in the budget segment. Dell U2311H and Dell U2211H.
Dell does not have good quality control at all so you may have to send back a few monitors before you get one that is perfect.
UltraSharp? U2410 Monitor with PremierColor technology Details | Dell

PRAD | Index Welcome Page

When looking at the response time also remember input lag.

"Input lag is a phenomenon associated with some types of LCD displays, and nearly all types of HDTVs, that refers to latency, or lag measured by the difference between the time a signal is input into a display and the time it is shown by the display. This lag time has been measured as high as 68ms,[1] or the equivalent of 3-4 frames on a 60 Hz display. Input lag is not to be confused with pixel response time."

Input lag - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia some reading.
Bottom line is: there are no perfect monitors, you have to deciede what tradeoff you want, there is so many parameters to consider, if you are buying a monitor and want a really good one (and good value) you have to read up. You have about 1 month of reading to do

 

hmm ive never had any run ins with acer monitors before so i cant comment on that but looking at its technical specs seems like a good one

wow that lg you were looking at has a phenomenal pixel pitch
for a 24" screen w/1920x1080 resolution.

both of those monitors have great numbers attached so i think youll be happy with either of them.

EDIT: i forgot to comment on eizo

from my experience with them they are unbelivable panels usually have a slightly slower response time (something like 6ms last time i looked not that it would make much difference anyway) but have an amazing color gamut range and are pretty bright . inside it had an insane amount of high quality circuitry but given its price of the one i looked at i can see why lol (foris fx2431) i didnt have much time to look it over since i didnt want to risk having to pay for an over $1000 usd monitor

side note: have you seen the lg infinia le9500? cant wait till i own a tv that slim

 

The pixel pitch would be the same for all 24" 1920x1080 right, or? Unless they are smaller than advertised I mean.

 

I have no iea what IPS and PVA are, so i'm just going to buy the acer you recommended. I just hope pixmania has good service. I already ran into the first problem with my order, I have no idea what their bank account number is, since its not displayed in their confirmation mail (redcoon is a much better site if yo uask me, but unfortunatly they don't have that monitor). I also had to mail and call (the answer in the mail was insufficient) to get ridd of the extra warranty they tried to force on me in their website

edit: @ryoko, yes that LG looks very good but it only has a vga port, and since i'm planning on hooking up a desktop and ps3 on my next monitor I definitly will need hdmi.

edit2: I just noticed that cnet said the acer monitor has backlight bleeding

edit 3: Ok I just watched the entire cnet review here http://reviews.cnet.com/lcd-monitors/acer-h243h/4505-3174_7-33568771.html and the h243h has a greenish look when watching video's (the same like some of samsung's cheaper monitors have, this is unacetpable for me.

I think i'm going back to the more expensive +-350€ samsung BX led monitors.

 

This is IPS YouTube - IPS vs TN+Film

 

Do you have a link?

I recommend this review: http://www.pcmweb.nl/hardware_review.jsp?productid=4275

Summary: Excellent contrast rates, Excellent brightness, Excellent reaction times.

This is as good as a TN panel gets. I'm considering buying one my self because I'm a big fan of high contrast.

 

80000:1 yeah right

Just because one monitor has backlight bleed it does not mean all specimens of the same model has the same problem, as I said earlier, when buying a monitor be prepared to send it back until you get a good one. Its hit or miss so just keep going.

 

Here are the real measured contrast rates: link.

Checkerboard contrast rates: link.

As you can see the measured contrast rates are better than Eizo EV2333WH, Dell 2709w (IPS) and Samsung F2380 (s-PVA).

 

Yeah it comes out on top.

 

And I agree about the back light bleeding, just that one sample has it doesn't mean every sample has it.

PS. I did not see the same monitor reviewed on Cnet.

 

I'd have to say that anything that is edge LED backlit and with a 178 viewing angle is a good choice. I don't believe anything else regarding what a vendor selling you a monitor/tv has to say about contrast ratio if their warranty is one year they gone, they're selling you crap. Sony says their XBR blah blah TV/monitor has over 1,000,000:1 contrast ratio, Sharp says their 4 subpixel per pixel is better than the classic RGB pixel panel. They all come up with stuff to sell their products... because they're vendors. Choose wisely!

 

Why exactly should he get LED?

PS. the viewing angles manufacturers give are just as unreliable as contrast rates.

 

I chose LED for less power consumption and less heat. A small display might be fine but a big display will put out a lot of heat. I just think that if the viewing angle is poor the product was meant to be inexpensive, and the contrast ratio just doesn't add up anymore.

 

Well LED does consume a bit less than CCFL but the difference tend to be smaller than many people think.

For example: my BenQ 23" LED consumed 19 watt, my Samsung P2370 CCFL consumes 25 watt (at my settings).

Now I could choose the BenQ for it's lower power consumption, instead I choose the Samsung P2370 for the better image quality.

Another example on Cnet.com:
With a calibrated brightness of 200 cd/m2, the XL draws about 21 watts, compared with 19.43 watts and 27.52 watts at the same brightness respectively for the G2410 and P2370.

That's 21 watt for the LED Samsung, 27 watt for the CCFL Samsung.

 

What makes the Samsung better in your opinion, Phil? I'm sorry and I appologize to the OP. We're trying to give you feedback which is always usefull.

 

The BenQ I had (G2420HDBL), had poor colors and very limited vertical viewing angles. Shades of grey would look different on the top than on the bottom of the screen.

I bought the BenQ because it has a LED backlight and good contrast rates. I found out there's a lot more to good image quality than contrast rates. Luckily my supplier has generous return policies so I returned it.

Now I've let go of my desire for a LED screen. The power consumption differences are too small to earn back.

 

Two products built completely different, however BenQ did not have a BenQ display in there. They probably have an LG or Toshiba or Samsung and Samsung had its own parts and they know what's needed to meet all the requirements of a high quality display.

 

I know the BenQ and Samsung are very different displays.

The power consumption numbers I gave earlier were for Samsung XL2370 and Samsung P2370. Very similar screens except for the backlight technology.

 

I tend to believe that the power discrepancy in between the two displays increases with the screen size. A 40" ccfl display will consume 40 to 50 more watts than a 40" LED display, while the LEDs are fairly cool, the mercury lamps put out more heat.

 

Here ya go Acer H243H LCD Monitor reviews - CNET Reviews

I also remember watching a review about a similiar acer screen which was 23 inch, and it also had blacklight bleeding. So it seems to me that this is a common problem in these acer screens.

But the bigger problem I think is the greenish looking colours you get when watching movies (the samsung p2450h has the same problem Samsung SyncMaster P2450h LCD Monitor reviews - CNET Reviews)

edit: I think i'm going to go with a lcd instead of a led screen: the samsung p2370H for 227€ ( http://www.samsung.com/be/consumer/...dex.idx?pagetype=prd_detail&tab=specification) seems like the best option atm. It has everything I want except for led backlight, and i'm willing to accept the fact that this screen will need a few seconds more to warm up, since a similiar led screen will cost me 100€ more.

 

Judging by the contrast rates the H243H and H243HBbmid are not the same.

In their measurements the XL2370 has better contrast than H243H. Hardware.info measured that the H243HBbmid had more than double the contrast of the XL2370.

 

Antwerp there is something you need to know, "you get what you pay for".

You want to pay pay 200€ you get a 200€ monitor. These are the cheapest monitors you could possibly buy. Its not going to be top notch. Quadruple the price and then we´re talking, then you get really good (consumer-)stuff, and double that then you get the best this planet has to offer.

Backlight bleeding and all other things that can degrade the image quality you will certainly get at this price point.

Greenish looking colours????? You should know that you really really REALLY have to adjust the monitor when you get it, not even the 4k€ monitors are "neutral" or "correct" when you get them, no 2 monitors are the same, not even if they came as no1 and no2 off the assembly line, too much going on.
They are individuals. Hardware calibration is the key.

For you to be satisfied for the longest time for the least amount of money this is what you should do:

Research and get an IPS monitor with less than 20ms of input lag, forget the response time since this is a much longer time anyway, response don´t mean anything in reality if the monitor has 40ms of input lag. 40ms+2 is 42ms but 8+15 is what? Yes its 23 isn´t it. Don´t be fooled by the technobabble.

Me myself I have top of line CRT monitors from 10-15 years ago, they have real contrast ratios of 20000:1 or double. Didn´t cost me anything. 0,0ms input lag and 0,0ms reponse time. Adjusts to my choice of resolution yes. I have zero tolerance of low quality crap so I might be biased.
I´m a tough costomer.

TN panels= no go in my world. (unless given to me for free)

 

I do agree mostly with Krane's opinion. With one addition: for normal, middle of the road users TN panels are sufficient.

And looking at Antwerp's needs, I think a good TN monitor will be a good match.

I know my TN Samsung P2370 isn't top of the line image quality but it does for me what it needs to do.

 

@student ah lol i was looking at a slightly newer model of the one you posted but no do not buy that lg you posted only because its been discontinued so that most likely means there is a newer model for about the same price (assuming the price isnt discounted already)

the one i was looking at was the w2453v-pf

 

Ok so I went to the store today (mediamarkt) to check out a few screens. I noticed that the difference between a led and plain lcd screen is not worth it (I compared a 24 inch samsung lx monitor with a 27 inch samsung P series monitor).
I also found out that even 27 inch is too small for my needs

About the 24 inch acer monitor we discussed, I did not notice any difference with other screens and didn't notice any greenish look or blacklight bleeding (ok you probably need to look in a dark room for that) which they mentioned.

 

lol so 27" is too small eh
maybe you could look at televisions instead of monitors?

i myself use a 32" television. i could have gone larger but i feel 32" should be the max that would look great at 1920x1080 without having to sit too far back

 

Just one thing about TVs, TVs are high input lag devices, and I think the pixel response time is usually worse too compared to computer monitors. If you want a suitable TV to use as a monitor for gaming you really have to research.

A TV generally has no need to be really fast pixelwise, and even less need to fast when it comes to input lag. This can turn out good or a complete nightmare.

This is why big computer monitors are so expensive compared to TVs.

 

yes thats all true but its not as big of an issue as it used to be.(its still there though)

anyway i have no issues at all with my television. i can take a picture of it with my camera if youd like to see what it looks like (just if your curious )

 

I believe you, I´m also in the market for a TV (as monitor), I just know that I have to spend a month or so getting the best one for my hard earned money.

Reason: I want big pixels, and would like to have the monitor far away.

 

A 27 inch would probably please me very much, since it looks quite big upclose. But...it seems my cheapines led me to this lg monitor: http://www.pixmania.be/be/nl/2701048/art/lg/w2361v-pf-23-tft-widescre.html

What do you guys think? In a previous thread I also gave a link to a lg (24 inch) but decided not to buy it since it didn't have a hdmi, but this lg on the other hand does have it so... I see litle downside in it (also 2ms response time and full hd, al that for 170€ if you include shipping).

I'm afraid the deal won't last for long so i'd like some opinions asap.

 

Pretty good deal. I say try it. It has 14 days money back guarantee, so if you don't like it you send it back.

Just make sure you keep it in absolute new condition. And I would also leave plastic protection stickers on it, except for on the screen.

I've send an article back to Pixmania before. They paid back promptly without any hassle.

 

Ok I placed the order and already transfered the money. Knowing the belgium bank system, i'll probably have the monitor next friday. I'll post a small review here to let ya'll know how I ( a simple gamer with no knowledge about screens ) like it. Thx for your quick reply phil

edit: btw...do you think I should use a hdmi cable for gaming, or will a vga cable do just as well?

 

HDMI will be better for desktop work and gaming. They're very cheap on ebay and dealextreme.com

Pixmania will have them too.

 

looks like you found a great deal i havent looked at the specs yet but definitely use hdmi because (i dunno if itll be the same for the monitor) on my lg tv i get much clearer picture and better colors along with contrast then the vga does (i mean by alot not just since its hdmi its kinda ridiculous lol).

also since your gonna be using a notebook you wont have any issues with ground loop interference through hdmi.

 

Ok thx, I wasn't sure if there would be any difference btween hdmi and vga, since I won't be able to play games in high res anyway. I'll just pick one up then as soon as I get my monitor.