Very cool article about all monitor technology

[Space Lynx]

Display Panel Technology: TN vs. VA vs. IPS

By far the most common types of display panels used on PC monitors are TN, IPS and VA. We're sure you've heard these terms before if you've...

www.techspot.com

Surprising how detailed it was. Nice read just wanted to share.

edit: there is no micro or mini LED discussion though... sadly

edit: just wanted to mention I don't think OLED is worth comparing to any of it. too many HUD's and UI's in games would risk burn in.

 

[biffzinker]

edit: just wanted to mention I don't think OLED is worth comparing to any of it. too many HUD's and UI's in games would risk burn in.

No burn-in issue is happening on my Note 9 which has OLED. Being a mobile device though the screen doesn't stay on for long with no activity because battery life.

 

[Space Lynx]

No burn-in issue is happening on my Note 9 which has OLED. Being a mobile device though the screen doesn't stay on for long with no activity because battery life.

I have OLED phones for a long time, no issues.

Like you said, difference is the static UI/HUD of game overlays. Also, the OLED in phones is a bit different than in TV's. I believe LG went to white only organic matter for the TV's which has reduced the burn in issues, but they still occur... just seems silly to me to spend 1-2 grand to risk it. Especially if you accidentally went away and left your Windows 10 PC on for many hours multiple times... that start menu burn in and bottom task bar probably would happen within a couple days.

 

[cucker tarlson]

well if you don't know the basics about the types I guess it's informative.

from my experience,however,monitors have to be considered on case by case basis.
not every IPS is great or even good,not every TN is bad.

if this article was to be really worthy I'd include the comparison of how each type displays black,grey and dark colors,cause it's where the devil is hiding.IPS has nice colors but black is absolutely crap.

 

[Space Lynx]

well if you don't know the basics about the types I guess it's informative.

from my experience,however,monitors have to be considered on case by case basis.
not every IPS is great or even good,not every TN is bad.

if this article was to be really worthy I'd include the comparison of how each type displays black,grey and dark colors,cause it's where the devil is hiding.IPS has nice colors but black is absolutely crap.

yeah it's not perfect.

I tend to not like the backlight bleed on any IPS... ruins dark scenes. never seen an IPS do it right... my TN does it ok even at 100 brightness. but the TN has other issues. VA is best blacks but I can't stand the pixel smearing, I am very sensitive to it visually since I was TN for so long.

 

[cucker tarlson]

yeah it's not perfect.

I tend to not like the backlight bleed on any IPS... ruins dark scenes. never seen an IPS do it right... my TN does it ok even at 100 brightness. but the TN has other issues. VA is best blacks but I can't stand the pixel smearing, I am very sensitive to it visually since I was TN for so long.

yup.
I had the exact same experience.Could not stand IPS cause dark scenes were all shades of gold and silver.VA pixel response was so slow that going to IPS felt 10 fps faster.In the end I settled for TN with really good factory calibration.Colors are vibrant,there's almost no banding,it's super fast,there's no backlight bleed and black is acceptable.it's not VA level but it's certainly black.

 

[biffzinker]

if this article was to be really worthy I'd include the comparison of how each type displays black,grey and dark colors,cause it's where the devil is hiding.

True black is one advantage OLED has working for it. My Samsung VA monitor gets a little closer to a true black but it's still not there.

Pixel response on this VA panel hasn't bothered me, feels as fast as the previous IPS monitor.

 

[Frick]

Thanked because it’s an article and not a damn video.

 

[authorized]

edit: there is no micro or mini LED discussion though... sadly

Well, it's not even on the market yet afaik. And when it comes out it'll be very expensive. So there's not much point to talk about it in context of choosing the tech of display to buy now.

 

[Space Lynx]

Well, it's not even on the market yet afaik. And when it comes out it'll be very expensive. So there's not much point to talk about it in context of choosing the tech of display to buy now.

Asus released the world's first Mini-LED monitor a few weeks ago, it's around 4 grand in price.

Amazon.com: Asus ProArt PA32UCX 32" 4K (3840 X 2160) HDR Mini LED Professional Monitor 99.5% Adobe RGB Delta E<1 IPS 5ms Thunderbolt 3 DisplayPort HDMI USB Dolby Vision HDR10 Hlg Displayhdr1000 Eye Care : Electronics

Amazon.com: Asus ProArt PA32UCX 32" 4K (3840 X 2160) HDR Mini LED Professional Monitor 99.5% Adobe RGB Delta E<1 IPS 5ms Thunderbolt 3 DisplayPort HDMI USB Dolby Vision HDR10 Hlg Displayhdr1000 Eye Care : Electronics

www.amazon.com

 

[authorized]

Yeah, that price is prohibitive for most people and it's not even microled, which would cost even more.

 

[Chomiq]

I could notice some image retention on solid backgrounds with my old Lumia 930. Since it used windows tile thing it wasn't hard to identify. That being said, it wasn't something you noticed during regular use.

 

[EarthDog]

dit: just wanted to mention I don't think OLED is worth comparing to any of it. too many HUD's and UI's in games would risk burn in.

While OLEDs do have more of a burn-in problem, you'll need to be playing the same game for quite a while every day on a daily basis for a long time for this to happen, note. I've got an OLED TV I use and during the day, ESPN is left on for a few hours each day... that ticker rolling across the bottom... nothing here yet (~6 months).

Please don't blow this out of proportion like you have with the Intel security patches, mmkay?

Thanks for the article!

 

[Bill_Bright]

EarthDog and I are in complete agreement here! My LG 4K OLED TV is pushing 2 1/2 years old and stays on HLN for hours every day. I see no burn in or blue pixel fade or any of the [so called] problems people keep complaining about. No doubt this is due, in part, to advances in OLED technologies, but also due to the built in features of the set that are designed to prevent and mitigate such problems. One of those features LG calls "Screen Shift". It moves the display a few pixels left, right, up or down at regular intervals to preserve image quality. Another feature detects static logos that ESPN, HLN, airport weather and other channels might constantly display and decreases the brightness of those pixels. Pretty clever if you ask me.

So based on my own experience, I can only assume such complaints we keep hearing about are made by those who don't own an OLED and instead, are made by those who are just repeating what they heard about early generation OLEDs.

That fact is, the vast majority of OLED users won't experience those problems. You would not use an OLED for a POS terminal (like a cash register monitor), but for most "normal" computer users, you could. It's just like those who keep talking and complaining about write limitations on SSDs. That was a problem with first generation SSDs, not today's - not for the vast majority of "normal" users. And by normal, I mean 99% of us.

I suspect the reason we don't see more OLED computer monitors simply boils down to costs. OLEDs tend to cost more because production costs are higher.

*****

I do have one complaint about that TechSpot review - though it is about monitor reviews in general, not meant to focus on TechSpot.

I keep reading about viewing angles - about how IPS have the best viewing angles, TN panels having lousy viewing angles and VA sitting somewhere in the middle. Are viewing angles really that important with computer monitors? I don't believe so.

How many computer users sit off to the side of the computer monitors? I don't know of any who do. Even those (like me) with multi-monitor setups, my main monitor sits directly in front of me and my secondary monitor(s) are angled at me so when I turn to look at the secondary monitors, they too are directly in front me.

For a TV in a living room where there will be multiple viewers sitting in a wide arc in front of the TV, then of course, viewing angles are very important. But computer users sit directly in front of their monitors, not off to the side, way above, or way below.

I'm just saying I think computer monitor reviews put way too much emphasis on viewing angles.

BTW, if you are a computer user who doesn't sit directly in front of your monitor for some add reason, OLED displays have excellent viewing angles!

 

[64K]

BTW, if you are a computer user who doesn't sit directly in front of your monitor for some add reason, OLED displays have excellent viewing angles!

I've never understood this issue. IPS monitors advertised their selling point because you could view them at wider viewing angles but who doesn't sit down right in front of their PC? Maybe some do because they have multiple monitors I guess.

 

[bug]

While OLEDs do have more of a burn-in problem, you'll need to be playing the same game for quite a while every day on a daily basis for a long time for this to happen, note. I've got an OLED TV I use and during the day, ESPN is left on for a few hours each day... that ticker rolling across the bottom... nothing here yet (~6 months).

Please don't blow this out of proportion like you have with the Intel security patches, mmkay?

Thanks for the article!

Burn in is not the only issue with OLED. Another issue is blue leds dying faster than the others. Now, this takes like a decade to happen, so the leds don't actually die, but they do change faster than the rest. So you'll need to recalibrate more often.

Also, OLED's burn in is nothing compared to plasma's

 

[Space Lynx]

Burn in is not the only issue with OLED. Another issue is blue leds dying faster than the others. Now, this takes like a decade to happen, so the leds don't actually die, but they do change faster than the rest. So you'll need to recalibrate more often.

Also, OLED's burn in is nothing compared to plasma's

LG doesn't use blue OLED anymore, they use white only combined with filters. The only organic matter is white OLED related, and white lasts the longest.

 

[1000t]

I keep reading about viewing angles - about how IPS have the best viewing angles, TN panels having lousy viewing angles and VA sitting somewhere in the middle. Are viewing angles really that important with computer monitors? I don't believe so.

How many computer users sit off to the side of the computer monitors? I don't know of any who do. Even those (like me) with multi-monitor setups, my main monitor sits directly in front of me and my secondary monitor(s) are angled at me so when I turn to look at the secondary monitors, they too are directly in front me.

It depends on monitor use case. Office type, sharp and high contrast images, e.g. text, spreadsheets or even CAD can be viewed on monitors even with atrocious viewing angles. I think human vision helps a lot, because brain can make up a lot of missing information, especially if it expects something knows, like characters.

Contrary to that, fine low contrast details are quickly ruined and if this combines with color shift it's clear why good viewing angles are important for more delicate graphical presentation.

IIRC, the the viewing angles quoted in specs stand for angle when contrast falls to 1:10.

 

[Bill_Bright]

It depends on monitor use case.

Of course. I said that. But for "normal" users, that is, 99% of us, we sit in front of our computer monitors, not off to the side. So viewing angles become irrelevant.

Office type, sharp and high contrast images, e.g. text, spreadsheets or even CAD can be viewed on monitors even with atrocious viewing angles.

Sorry, but that really makes no sense. And is not true anyway when sitting off the side with a monitor that has "atrocious viewing angles". For such a monitor, the display quickly washes out. But again, who sits off to the side of the computer monitor?

And sorry, but is obvious you have never been involved or even seen any "serious" CAD/CAE work, or even "sharp and high contrast" imagery scans used by medical professionals. If you attempt to view those images from the side on a monitor that has "atrocious viewing angles", you can't! So the engineers and doctors don't. They view them straight on.

Contrary to that, fine low contrast details are quickly ruined and if this combines with color shift it's clear why good viewing angles are important for more delicate graphical presentation.

No. That's not right either. If you are sitting in front of your computer (as 99% of computer users do), there is no color shift, therefore, contrast and "delicate" details as seen from side angles don't factor in.

If you are dancing around the room when using your computer, then I'd agree with you. But who does that? Computer users sit fixed at their desks, in front of their monitors.

Again, exceptions don't make rule. So please don't offer some extreme rare example and expect it renders the whole point moot.

 

[authorized]

I've never understood this issue. IPS monitors advertised their selling point because you could view them at wider viewing angles but who doesn't sit down right in front of their PC? Maybe some do because they have multiple monitors I guess.

Vertical viewing angles can also be an issue if the monitor doesn't have height adjustment. Or if you just slouched in the chair. Old TNs looked terrible from a downward angle, I guess new displays aren't probably as bad.
Or, if a person is sitting close to a big screen, there can already be a discernible shift in the corners. But to be honest, I'd probably choose that over IPS glow.

Burn in is not the only issue with OLED. Another issue is blue leds dying faster than the others. Now, this takes like a decade to happen, so the leds don't actually die, but they do change faster than the rest. So you'll need to recalibrate more often.

Also, OLED's burn in is nothing compared to plasma's

While we're talking about cons of OLED, there's also stuttering on panning shots, apparently this effect is the worst on OLED screens. I found out about it only recently when I was trying to figure out if I can do something about this issue on my TV (LCD). I think it's related to refresh rates though, so more of a problem in TVs than high refresh computer monitors.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Vertical viewing angles can also be an issue if the monitor doesn't have height adjustment.

Isn't that what old telephone books or reams of paper are for?

Actually, that's another reason why all my monitors must has height adjustment.

Fortunately, almost all (if not all) monitors have tilt adjustment.

And yes, if you are sitting to close to a big screen, that can be a problem. But the problem is, you are sitting too close to the screen.

 

[R-T-B]

Maybe some do because they have multiple monitors I guess.

This. And for content creation markets where "over the shoulder" collaboration with coworkers tends to be a thing.

 

[Bill_Bright]

As I said many times already, there are always exceptions, but exceptions don't make the rule.

Of course there are over-the-shoulder scenarios, but the person sitting in the chair in front of the monitor is still, for all practical purposes, the one driving. If collaboration is to become the norm, then typically you would have a big screen where all can sit back and view.

 

[1000t]

Of course. I said that. But for "normal" users, that is, 99% of us, we sit in front of our computer monitors, not off to the side. So viewing angles become irrelevant.

Normal users have various demands, either for nature of their work or just their sensitivity. Viewing angles as in their maximum values (e.g. 178°/178°) are not what ultimately matters, but it is just a number distilled for spec sheets. What matters are the effects of different panel technologies and how the image degrades depending on angle. Of course, the notion of good enough has to be taken into account.

Sorry, but that really makes no sense. And is not true anyway when sitting off the side with a monitor that has "atrocious viewing angles". For such a monitor, the display quickly washes out. But again, who sits off to the side of the computer monitor?

And sorry, but is obvious you have never been involved or even seen any "serious" CAD/CAE work, or even "sharp and high contrast" imagery scans used by medical professionals. If you attempt to view those images from the side on a monitor that has "atrocious viewing angles", you can't! So the engineers and doctors don't. They view them straight on.

CAD are almost polar opposite to medical or artistic images considering what constitutes important information. Drawings/3D models rely on sharp edges and lines, raster images have information in fine gradients in addition to boundaries with high contrast.

No. That's not right either. If you are sitting in front of your computer (as 99% of computer users do), there is no color shift, therefore, contrast and "delicate" details as seen from side angles don't factor in.

If you are dancing around the room when using your computer, then I'd agree with you. But who does that? Computer users sit fixed at their desks, in front of their monitors.

Again, exceptions don't make rule. So please don't offer some extreme rare example and expect it renders the whole point moot.

Image on a display is not perfect. Useful and large working area on a display means large angles. So different panel technologies and resulting view angles have their weight even in ordinary, sitting at desk situation.

In the end, viewing angles are subjectively important, given various circumstances. Maybe not for you, but for somebody else event those small differences matter.

 

[Bill_Bright]

CAD are almost polar opposite to medical or artistic images considering what constitutes important information. Drawings/3D models rely on sharp edges and lines, raster images have information in fine gradients in addition to boundaries with high contrast.

This again makes no sense at all, especially in the context of our previous exchange.

If you are a radiologist analyzing a MRI image, you will be looking at the screen straight on.​

If you are professional photographer photoshopping your latest wedding gig pictures, you will be looking at the screen straight on.​

If you are an architect designing a new 5th Avenue skyscrapper, you will be looking at the screen straight on.​

If you are a naval engineer designing the latest attack submarine, you will be looking at the screen straight on.​

If you are a gamer playing GTA, you will be looking at the screen straight on.​

If you are a student writing a Microsoft Word document, you will be looking at the screen straight on.​

If you are an accountant using Excel to balance the books, you will be looking at the screen straight on.​

If you are forum poster creating a new post, you will be looking at the screen straight on.​

Image on a display is not perfect.

Huh? Nobody said anything about anything being perfect. This is just obfuscation. And you are stuck on viewing angles. That's fine. I still contend the vast majority, by a long shot, of computer users sit directly in front of their monitors where viewing angles play but a tiny role, if that. You can keep arguing whatever points you are trying to argue, that fact will not change. Coming up with little exceptions does not change that fact.

All I said was too much emphasize is put on viewing angles by monitor reviews.

There is no reason to continue to debate that.