On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 1:07 PM, GSR - FR <fam...@infernal-iceberg.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> gra...@yadtel.net (2009-11-12 at 1329.34 -0500):
>> recomendation??
>> I've been looking online at ViewSonic X Series VX2433wm Black 23.6" 2ms(GTG);
>> 5ms HDMI Full 1080P Widescreen LCD Monitor -
>> Maximum Resolution: 1920 x 1080
> If you want to have good colours, avoid TN panels, they are normally 6
> bit per colour, not 8, and colour changes with angle in noticeable
> ways (we are talking about image retouch, right?). You can see what I
> mean in http://www.digitalversus.com/duels.php?ty=6 (select view
> angles from selector) and the panel type (TN, IPS, PVA, etc) can be
> looked up in http://www.flatpanelshd.com/panels.php.

I agree, I recently bought a high-resolution TN screen and it is
horrible (Dell SP2309W, 2048x1152, 100 DPI). The viewing angles are
terrible, especially up and down. There is no position in which you
can sit where the entire screen shows consistent color. The black
level and backlight bleed is really bad, and it has a glossy screen
which means I see myself in the reflect and the overhead lights glare
off of it. That must be why it is so cheap (around $300 USD). It's
okay for games or movies (with the lights out) but for photo work or
anything where accurate colors matter, it is really annoying and I
don't recommend it.

On the other hand I have had great experience with Dell Ultrasharp
series, which usually have IPS or PVA panels, I think. I would
recommend them as a combination of price and performance. They've
usually got good on-screen menus and various ports and features
(rotate to portrait orientation, etc).  I personally have two Dell
Ultrasharp 2007FP's (1600x1200, 100 DPI) one with IPS panel and one
with PVA panel, and the PVA version actually looks better. The IPS
version has bad color banding problems on gradients. Both have great
viewing angles and colors don't shift at all when you move around.
Black levels are good, too.

Or if you've got a lot of money to spend you can drop $2000 or so on a
HP DreamColor :)

Also I wouldn't put too much stock into the millisecond ratings. I've
played the same game in a supposedly 20ms and 2ms screens and can't
tell any difference at all. I think it's a bit of marketing (like
selling 240Hz TV's to watch a 24fps movie...). And for Gimp work it is
especially meaningless. Actually the screen I have used with really
low ms rating has this weird "sparkling" effect in the pixels that i
think must be some kind of hardware compensation to try to improve the
framerate. (I'm guessing...)

Here's another site with monitor panel info in a nice table:
Gimp-user mailing list

Reply via email to