Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: IPS screens

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Lebanon
    Posts
    3,000

    IPS screens

    I will have to change the home PC monitor, it started showing dead cells.

    The PC is not used for gaming but instead for photo editing in addition to normal browsing.

    I have the choice between a normal LED screen (samsung sd332) and an IPS model (24MP58VQ-P).

    Does the quality of the display (color depth, black rendering , contrast ration....) of the ISP explains the price difference?

    Thank you

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    in the wild New England, NSW
    Posts
    4,853
    I've not seen them side by side, however I guess the new tech will be considerably more expensive but I cannot give a view at this time as to which will be better to use. Colour is claimed to be improved on ips and if this is important for your photoediting then it could be worth considering.
    REMLR 374
    VKS Mob 3258

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    2,633
    Quote Originally Posted by lebanon View Post
    ....

    Does the quality of the display (color depth, black rendering , contrast ration....) of the ISP explains the price difference?

    Thank you
    Not necessarily!
    IPS is just a type of technology. It was invented by Hitachi. Hitachi is a company, and wants a return on it's investment in research. So the tech is licensed, and that license is surely to cost something to have access too.
    I think LG owns the rights to IPS tech(maybe, can't really remember specifics)
    Also, IPS costs more to implement on the LCD array.

    There are other alternatives to IPS tech.
    Two main ones used are PLS(Samsung??) and AHVA(AU Optronics) .. I can't remember any other similar higher quality tech types(compared to VA types).

    Note that just because a screen is IPS, doesn't imply that it's output quality is any better than a non IPS screen.
    bit depth is far more important than panel tech, and almost certainly an IPS screen will need to be calibrated to be 'accurate' in it's colour output. Very few screens are calibrated at manufacture(costs money).
    I know some are tho, Dell high priced units, NEC, Samsung, Eizo .. etc. But that doesn't mean that if you get a Dell, it'll be calibrated tho. Higher price usually is a good indicator for that.
    That is, a $300 27" Dell compared to an $800 27" Dell is more likely that the $800 one will be calibrated(and have higher res and maybe bit depth) .. but the higher end ones are more likely to be calibrated.

    TFT Central can be a good source of info as to what's good and what's not. They also have calibration files you can download which saves you the process of doing it yourself.
    I reckon I searched for a good 6 months to a year before I finally bit the bullet and got my screen(but at $2+K, you want to be sure the screen is very high quality).

    I have two screens, and a well calibrated old type VA screen can be just as good as a calibrated IPS/PLS/etc. screen too.
    To a machine that measures and views data points to the nth degree, it seems like low quality screen is not so good, but to us humans that interpret vision .. those differences are almost impossible to see!
    Bit depth is where we see more anomalies than colour accuracy and fidelity.

    My two screens are poles apart.
    $2+ K 32" 4K 10 bit Samsung monster, and a piddly 24" $100 LG weener. I have them side by side on the same stand(mm apart) and see them both at the same time.
    In terms of colour, there are differences, but as I said before .. nothing to speak of in terms of real differences.
    But the bit depth is where they differ.
    In some situations in my photos, I see posterization on the cheap screen, which then forces me to study the image in more detail to see what I did wrong, but then that same image in the 10 bit Samsung doesn't exist.
    I also printed out the offending image on a cheap laser printer(ie. not the best colour quality) to see if the posterization is there in print, but it's not.
    Reason is, the 6 bit cheap screen can't render some shades(or tones/lightness/darkness) of some colours very well. I've seen this effect more so on blue than other colours too tho.

    So if you want a new screen just because you want a more accurate colour, and if you don't have a calibrator .. then maybe spend $s on a calibrator instead. I recommend this every time it pops up on photography fora.
    If you want a better screen for the fact that it's just better .. then of course get one that is better.
    Have a budget in mind, try to extend it a bit more if possible, and just get something far better.
    Depending on camera(model, pixel count, etc) and the type of photography you're into, I'd say more important will be resolution of monitor. The higher the better!
    This is what surprised me more than colour accuracy when I first turned on the Samsung. The ability to see more image AND more detail at the same time.
    To see errors I made earlier(ie. focus or vibration) and catch those errors before I committed to an image.

    Then on the upside of that again, having the higher res(and larger size) allows me to to have more 'other' programs open and do more within them. eg. spreadsheets, browser pages .. etc. You get more info onto a single page with higher res.

    Never seen this myself, but I'd say a minimum of 27" at 4K would have to be a sensible low side(screen size) I can't imagine the font size of 4K on a 24" screen. I've since found that 32" is maybe a bit of overkill, but font size is easy on failing eyes.
    Down side to 4K screen(that no ever discusses) is that some programs haven't been scaled to that resolution. Slowly slowly some are, some auto scale no matter the screen size/res.

    eg. I use Nikon camera equipment, and I prefer their software, but I also use many other software for other purposes too.
    The older(really old, no longer supported Nikon software) scales fine, whether HD or 4K screen(remember I have one of each, side by side).

    The newer Nikon software, CNX-D at first didn't scale nicely on 4K. Fonts far too small, and almost unusable. And don't think that when I use the term font it's just about the size of the alphanumerics, the tool sizes are all affected.
    Being so small, many of the tools in CNX-D were hard to use, and close to unusable!, hard to click on something microscopic with accuracy .. just to select it.
    But with an update they fixed that, so now no problem. Same with FSViewer. Had the same issue, but sorted by manufacturer.
    But, Nikon have yet to fix View-NXi, so I can't use it on my 4K screen. I need to have it on the old HD screen, and have the images rendering on the 4K screen.

    So some software just doesn't work so well on higher res screens(until it's updated too).

    Hope that helps.
    Cheers,
    Arthur.

    '99 D1 300 Tdi Auto

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Search AULRO.com ONLY!
Search All the Web!