Need advice: VS VP191b-2 ?

    Hi There,


    I've just discovered this forum, great work guys!! A lot of information and top-professional replies!


    I've been looking for a 19" LCD for a long time (actually, too long). The problem is that there are not too many places where I can see these monitors in action before buying, so it makes the buying process problematic since I have to heavily rely on online reviews.


    Some comments:
    - Most of my monitor usage is text/internet with some minor graphics applications.
    - Almost no games, although I do play once in a while.
    - Must use DVI
    - I do not care about speakers
    - I prefer Pivot, but this is not a deal breaker
    - I do not want a glossy screen like the Sony HS94P or VS VP912b


    With my current CRT I usually turn the brightness down and contrast mid-level. I do not like high brightness, and prefer "creamy" feeling which reduces my eyes strain. Therefore, I would probably opt for a standard 250cdm brightness and a contrast which is as high as I can get.


    3 months ago I've seen the VP191b (the 25ms model) and really liked it. I liked the "soft" feeling the monitor has. Fine and gentle colors.


    I only had 2 problems with the monitor:
    1. The text wasn't crisp enough. I would like to have a razor sharp text (no cleartype for me ;)
    2. When I tried some test patterns, I could see some "waves" on the monitor. This is a bit hard for me to explain. The pattern was like a spider web. The monitor showed it nice, but there was some strange noise on the picture which kept moving around, as if the grid was moving in some parts. The connection was Analog. I do not know if this happens in DVI as well.



    My question is: which monitor should I go for?
    I was thinking about the new VP191b (the 16ms) - does it use the same panel type? Will it be as soft as the previous one?


    Thanks a lot!
    Moti

    Einmal editiert, zuletzt von moti_r ()

    Actually there is another coming out as well. VP191B but the specs state 8 ms with 170 degree viewing angles, 700:1 contrast+. The funny part is the 8ms gray to gray with a (20ms) typical on the same line as well as no list of colors or type of panel.


    The spec sheet is at:


    From reading through other posts here and your applications I wouldn't look at TN technology though. From the spec of 20ms on the new one I am not sure that it is TN, but the 16ms VP191 surely has to be even though nothing about this is stated on the Viewsonic web, nor is their technical support willing to give this over the phone (assuming they know the answer--the three people I spoke to trying to extract this on the new one really didn't sound like they knew the even tried to look it up).


    I am dying to know as well. If I find out more I will repost.

    Ah man.. thats sucky. I wish they could actually make a new model name when they put in new panels in an already exisiting model. I was pretty convinced that VP191b/s was Viewsonics very early 19" 25 ms MVA panel. I think it came in 2003 or something. The prad database confirms that. Then there is two other panel specs out there. :) Or maybe there is one new type that some information dude at the Viewsonic home page just took (8 + 20) / 2 and ended up with 16 ms somehow. :)


    Moreover, I did see that there are some TV TFT (LG Philips) Super-ISP panels that have like 8 ms gray to gray speeds. TV market seems to rely more on actual quality than specifications like the monitor market. I guess it would be natural to use that technology in monitors too. Just like with the recently reviewed Eizo L778 that uses the overdrive stuff to boost MVA responsetime that has been available in TV TFTs before.


    News from Viewsonic in the matter is that they seem to be speccing gray to gray instead of black to black. I guess the technical directors on the companies are starting to kick some marketing ppl asses to fix them annoying "bluff specs" they have been doing with all the crappy TN panels.

    Einmal editiert, zuletzt von Yomat ()

    I find this very hard to believe.


    I actually never saw any monitor, not even TN or S-IPS that has 8 ms refresh time gray to gray. It always goes up, around 20ms or a bit less.


    8ms is black to white.



    As for the marketing people: once again, I find it hard to believe they will suddenly decide to use different scheme that might give them worse results. Unless there is a new uniform standard, they will keep specifying number as they want to.


    Just me 0.02$ ...

    Well. Go into:


    Download the PDF at the bottom there and check page 4. You can see displays with 8 ms gtg. If they can spec it like that then Viewsonic should be able to do it also. Those are TV displays but why shouldent it be possible to make monitors out of them panels?

    Hehe. You can actually trace panels form that PDF. The NEC LCD2080UX+ 20" for instance has the S-IPS panel with 16 ms and 4:3 ratio. I wonder how that one fares. Price is a little bit lower than Eizo L797 but the NEC has lower contrast ratio. That NEC could perhaps make a good choice for ultra-gamers with too much money.

    Yes, I see what you mean.
    Strange, this is the first time I see gray-to-gray numbers.


    But I still do not believe them. Not until we see real measurements from 3rd party reviewers. I'm sure we will learn something new about the specific measurement.


    For example - there are all kinds of grays. As you probably know when you see a refresh graph of a monitor, it is a 2D graph. So providing only 1 measurement is just 1 point on this graph. This does not reveal the big picture...

    From what I've learned from other forums is that that GTG response time is deceivning. That's 'cause ISO times are sum of rise and fall times. GTG on the other hand is time between only one such transition. So 8ms GTG is really closer to 16ms ISO than 8ms.


    As I mentioned this is what I've learned from other people. It's not 100% sure fact. If I'm wrong, someone please correct me.

    I agree with you both. GTG specifications is as useless as the other spec if they dont tell how its done. So its just another bogus number. I saw on Eizo's homepage that they specify a bit more than just the timings: "Average response time measured between each grayscale level of 31, 63, 95, 127, 159, 191, and 223." Is that ISO?
    Eizo is probably doing it better but still kind of weak. Ideally every monitor should have like 3 graphs showing characteristics instead of one number. That would be much better and it will also never happen. :)

    Zitat

    Original von Yomat
    Is that ISO?


    No. AKAIK there is no ISO for screen refresh details. This is why manufacturers still hold to the B-W measurement.


    Zitat

    Original von Yomat
    That would be much better and it will also never happen. :)


    LOL :D :] :tongue:


    I am really getting tired of this 19" LCD search.
    I think I am going to push it faster.


    I want to see the new Samsung 920T...

    Zitat

    Originally posted by moti_r


    I am really getting tired of this 19" LCD search.
    I think I am going to push it faster.


    Yeah. I'm also tired of it. I'm thinking I'll just buy some random monitor and after some use then I will know what I really need and then buy that monitor and sell the other one second hand. Its really hard to know these things if you're not able to use them for some time.


    Zitat


    I want to see the new Samsung 920T...


    Well.. a big magazine here in Sweden did win a big test this February. The selection of models is of course not what anybody on this forum would pick.. but nevertheless:


    Acer AL1921H
    Benq FP992
    Dell 1905FP
    Eizo Flexscan L768
    HP L1955
    Hyundai Imagequest Q19
    IBM Thinkvision L191P
    LG L1930B
    NEC Multisync LCD1960NX
    Neovo E-19
    Philips 190B5CS
    Prestigio P190T
    Samsung Syncmaster 920T
    Sony SDM-X93


    920T won this test. I havent been able to read more than the results of it but I might to get to read it next week. I can report back to you if you think it would help.
    I am myself a bit curious how the LG and Philips did in the test since I think both have the same S-IPS panel. As a sidenote I believe only the Samsung, Eizo, Dell are VA panels and the rest are TN.

    Einmal editiert, zuletzt von Yomat ()

    It would be GREAT if you could give us the highlights.


    Personally I would also be interested in the NEC Multisync LCD1960NX. It is S-IPS and got good reviews.


    The LG I can get for a great price here in Israel, but I've read bad reviews about their reliability (changing panels??) and electronics.


    I would go for the Samsung but I'm just a bit concerned about the refresh rate (VA...) + I liked the cream colors of the VP191b and I do not like harsh displays.

    I'll check the review and post the details. No problemo. :)


    Hmm.. just to make sure: Its only LCD1960NXi that is S-IPS. NX is TN I think. On the other hand the newer LCD1970NX without the 'i' is a S-IPS. Also LCD1980NXi is S-IPS.


    On the other hand. If you like how the VP191b looks like, the one you saw was probably a VA panel. Perhaps you should look into them instead. When it comes to VA the 920T is probably a quite good choice right now. Mayhaps the Eizo L768 also. I will read the review and see why they picked 920T and not L768. It could be the price difference.

    Zitat

    Original von Yomat
    Hmm.. just to make sure: Its only LCD1960NXi that is S-IPS. NX is TN I think. On the other hand the newer LCD1970NX without the 'i' is a S-IPS. Also LCD1980NXi is S-IPS.


    Yep, you are completely right. The NX is TN and is not relevant since there are better TNs if you chose to go with it (and I wouldn't ;)


    Zitat

    Original von Yomat
    On the other hand. If you like how the VP191b looks like, the one you saw was probably a VA panel. Perhaps you should look into them instead. When it comes to VA the 920T is probably a quite good choice right now. Mayhaps the Eizo L768 also. I will read the review and see why they picked 920T and not L768. It could be the price difference.


    Yep.
    When I saw the VP191b it was clear that there is some smearing, but I didn't have a chance to really play a game or surf the web properly to see how much this annoys me. I usually don't play games (once in a while, and it's usually an adventure like Larry 8 or Syberia, no FPS) so I'm not sure how bad it is going to be.


    Thanks for any info you can get!! <thumbs up icon>

    Hey there. I want to forward my apologies. I got a bit swamped and sick on top of that so I havent been able to check out the review yet. I must be able to do it one of the following days.

    Ok. Here we go. Now I have studied the article.


    First of all the article is directed toward strict office usage. That means they dont care anything about responsetimes and such. No movies nor games. Although they do put alot of weight on graphics usage, color reproduction and such things which isnt extremely common in office environments. This direction of the article will affect the verdicts accordingly.


    I took notice mostly on the models that are discussed in this forum and their properties.


    Eizo L768 and Samsung 920T scored 89% both. I could not find any reason why 920T was picked the winner. I am assuming it was the price factor.


    NEC LCD1970NX - 76%. (The model tested was 1970 not 1960 as previously stated)
    LG L1930B - 66% (second lowest but I discuss why)
    Philips 190B5CS (forgot to note the test score but I know that this one was runner up behind the two winners)


    However not much was said about 920T. The verdict of the monitor was something like "All monitors were good. 920T is the one with least flaws.". The L768 got top verdict on color reproduction and image quality and was premier choice for people who do photo work.


    Most interesting about the test (at least for me) is that they did a custom text sharpness test on all screens. What they did was load up some text with 6.2 pt Arial and test how far away they could move from the screen and still be able to read it. In this test the NEC and LG excelled and the rest was marginally behind. The Philips wasnt mentioned but I think it couldent have been that far off.


    No surprise all the MVA and especially the Samsung PVA did superbly on contrast and blackness tests. Although the article writer stated something about the Eizo that I interpreted as uneven backlight leakage.


    L1930B and why it scored so badly. Apparently it had serious dark scale problems and too much violet instead of black. It measured the second lowest luminance score where Samsung topped. This violet hue caused low score on viewing angle also somehow. Since the test final score weighs was almost only dependent on contrast and dark image quality, the L1930B got shot down easily. The NEC also had this dark quality problem but at a much lesser degree and even better was the Philips. This all verifies that LG makes less quality than the other brands with the same panel but it is also alot cheaper. You get what you pay for.


    All in order the writers opinion was firmly that the VA panels color reproduction was much 'better' than the others. And that the IPS panels was "a bit pale and weak". Although in this forum we all know that VA panels tend to exaggerate colors and IPS to be more true. So its not surprising that for a random tester perhaps photos will look better with gaudy colors.


    -------------


    Thats it! I know it didnt help much. I dont know why they didnt talk more about the winning monitor 920T. Maybe I missed it.. but I dont think so. I guess they thought 'best choice' said it all.

    Zitat

    Originally posted by Yomat
    LG L1930B - 66% (second lowest)


    Now THAT sounds encouraging :( I should receive my L1930B in a couple of days. Funny that no one ever mentioned those serious dark scale problems before. One of the reasons I ordered it was it's supposedly wide viewing angles and they rated it low in that aspect too? Great. I should have probably went with the 193P but seeing as the 193P+ is coming soon that wouldn't be a good decision either.


    BTW, does anyone know whether the L1930B and L1920B use the same panel? When Behardware reviewed the L1920B () the color reproduction seemed just fine.