Monitor recommendations?

[TonyToniTone]

cyberface said:

For example, Apple use the same 30" panel as Dell (as in the same manufacturer and model, I think it's Samsung, but not sure so don't quote me), and the Dell is cheaper. However I rarely hear of Apple HD display users complaining of duff pixels. My two are both perfect.

The Dell is cheaper and the panels rarely have duff pixels..

[bobthemonkey]

As I understand it, Apple only use one specific LCD unit. Dell use 3 or 4 types, one of which is the
Apple type. I have heard stories of people buying Dell screens and returning them 3 or 4 times until they got one with the good panel.

[jagdpanther]

cyberface said:

jagdpanther said:

xiphias said:

Is colour reproduction essential? That tends to affect the price somewhat...

I do a shedload of photography so take what you need from that I suppose

Then forget the 'glossy' screen types hyped up by various manufacturers and look for quality, not quantity.

Unfortunately getting photog-standard colour range, ease of calibration, high resolution *and* zero dead pixels costs quite a lot of money. Hardly any manufacturers will guarantee zero dead pixels (especially on a big screen) but the better brands tend to use the top-end 'bins' (like CPUs, LCD display panels are graded, and the same panel with a few dead/stuck pixels will be sold for less than a perfect one).

For example, Apple use the same 30" panel as Dell (as in the same manufacturer and model, I think it's Samsung, but not sure so don't quote me), and the Dell is cheaper. However I rarely hear of Apple HD display users complaining of duff pixels. My two are both perfect.

Apple's screens are pricey though, Eizo's top end panels are arguably better, so I'd consider them... also NEC do proper calibrated screens. LaCie have a dedicated photographer's range of individually factory-calibrated screens, and also sell a hardware calibration device.

If you're doing photography seriously, then a good screen is vital... I'd be looking for colour space reproduction well before considering widescreen or not (which is irrelevant for anything but widescreen video).

The way I look at it is that I currently have a shagged out old Olivetti which is as near to 12 years old it makes no difference.

Its really starting to fall to pieces:

Its on one of those pre-amped speaker base things, which has been disconnected, but it works on the pan & tilt mechanism which snapped and is now carefully "perched" on top of its base

The screen flickers like merry hell

According to those people that havent used mine (including my mother who is in no way computer savvy) they say its fuzzy and blurry around the edges and the pics are really flat

Oh and it must weigh about 40kgs

Anything I buy is bound to be an improvement

[TonyToniTone]

bobthemonkey said:

As I understand it, Apple only use one specific LCD unit. Dell use 3 or 4 types, one of which is the
Apple type. I have heard stories of people buying Dell screens and returning them 3 or 4 times until they got one with the good panel.

Pretty sure the widescreens are the same panel, me and a group of gamers having been running ours for about 2years+

[Mr_Yogi]

I'm not sure about the 30" Dells but I as I understand it Dell only use 1 type of panel at a time for the 24" models.

However they do have different revisions of the same product, and as these revisions change over it can be a lottery as to which revision you receive, and I have heard of people repeatidly ordering them and sending them back because they want a particular revision.

As for Dell's in general, I think you can't go far wrong, especially from the upper models, I use a 19" (non-widescreen) 1905? at work which is very good, A friend also has the same model. I've had a 2407 (widescreen) at home for a 18months which is excellent, and none of these have any dead or stuck pixels (touches wood )

[toohuge]

This is a little off topic, but i am looking for a screen as well and i have been looking at some of the samsung screens or LG screens, the prices are very attractive but can anybody either shed some light on what either of these brands are like for monitors? Also can anybody work out the samsung model range numbering?

[cyberface]

TonyToniTone said:

bobthemonkey said:

As I understand it, Apple only use one specific LCD unit. Dell use 3 or 4 types, one of which is the
Apple type. I have heard stories of people buying Dell screens and returning them 3 or 4 times until they got one with the good panel.

Pretty sure the widescreens are the same panel, me and a group of gamers having been running ours for about 2years+

The 30" Apple one has changed over the years - I've got a very early one and a very recent one, and one performs perfectly on the LCD test bitmap websites, whereas the other shows interference. The newer one is flawless.

[rsv gone!]

Go for a Samsung screen (they make most of the best panels, by most accounts)

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prod...

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prod...

[cyberface]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I have no idea who the hell you are, but I presume you're dismissing rudely my opinion that colour gamut is more important than form factor for serious photographic work?

I seriously hope that you're not contending the first sentence, that a good screen is vital if you're doing serious photographic work, because that would be foolish.

I agree that widescreen monitors are relevant for 'ergonomic and productivity' reasons but this is application and workflow-specific, or do you not agree? I bought big widescreen monitors because the ability to have two A4 pages side by side and the ability to work with multiple large spreadsheets gave me a massive increase in productivity. But the OP is talking about photography where these benefits are less apparent.

I will concur that the word 'irrelevant' was incorrect (for the reason above) but I'd certainly say the benefits are less relevant for, say, Photoshop, Aperture, Lightroom, etc. work than they are for DTP, general office document work, even financial analysis.

If you still reckon my argument is 'nonsense' then perhaps you'd like to explain how my argument makes zero sense i.e. is self-contradictory or meaningless.

Anyway, lest this turn into a flamewar, I'll add my experience from the first commercially available LCD screens to explain why I hold the opinion I do. If your workflow involves paged documents then the 2 A4 page display can be very useful (the earliest widescreen I can remember, the Silicon Graphics 1600SW 17 inch panel advertised this heavily) - but that was an expensive panel, required its own special graphics card IIRC, and it's only recently that large enough widescreen panels with enough resolution to do 2 A4 pages side by side have become widely available.
That leaves the main utility of a widescreen monitor being the ability (with Mac-type apps, for example) to have the main document filling its space and having enough screen real estate at the left or right to accommodate all the tool palettes. This has always been just as easy with multiple monitors. I've always preferred two 'normal' 1280x1024 screens to a single 20/23 inch widescreen. Back in the late nineties at Bloomberg's offices in Finsbury Square, grids of 3x2 up to 4x4 Eizo thin-bezel 18" LCD panels were the choice - no ergonomic benefit to a widescreen over multiple closely-spaced normal monitors **unless** your source material is widescreen and needs to span across more than one screen. Those 18" Eizo screens cost £2500 each back then, I bought one and it's still running perfectly today next to my two 30" Apple widescreens, 8 years later, no dead pixels.

My point is that the only ergonomic benefit to widescreens over two normal screens relates to when the data from your app can't fit on one screen. This is typically normally only found in the production of video content - though if you have some other definite applications that benefit from widescreens hugely over two normal thin-bezel screens, then I'm open to being corrected.

Also I've seen the colour reproduction of poor quality panels (and as you state, the technology used is relevant here). Some of the earlier panels had such a tight viewing angle for correct colour display (look at one from the side... everyone knows the effect) that a widescreen version would be impractical...

So I still stand by my opinion that for proper photography, I'd be more concerned with colour performance, and buy a couple of decent 18" screens than a 23" widescreen. You get more real estate with an Apple 30" than you do with dual 1280x1024, but it's a lot more expensive.

Anyway this is largely internet argument for no reason.... the OP stated that 'anything would be better than what he has now' and the description of his current screen sounds scary for real photography so any modern panel that isn't full of dead pixels would do the job...

[cyberface]

Fair enough - you are quite obviously more expert with current panel tech than I am. I've always spent more on my displays than my computers - what I'm staring at 18 hours a day is more important than the box underneath the desk... and when I was last having to choose on price between the then-biggest 23" inch displays and dual 18" Eizo quality screens, the dual Eizos won every time for me.

As I said (and you seem to do it as well) the 'one big document, several tool palettes' works just as well with dual screens as with a big widescreen. It's only when the document itself stretches across the two screens that it really *doesn't* work - and apart from video, I'm struggling to think of many apps that really demand the additional width of a widescreen (minus the tool palettes). But I agree with your 'ergonomics' argument in principle.

As with everything, volume dictates cost and process improvements has improved yield to the point where the high-res displays aren't necessarily ultra-expensive or always full of dead pixels (back when I had the 23" vs dual 18" debate, the 18" Eizos were of higher quality). A 24" panel with exactly the same resolution as two good 18" panels (2560x1024) will win if the panel is of good quality and displays colours correctly with good viewing angles.

I think I may be a bit out of date here now... as soon as they were available, I was fortunately in the position to afford the 30" Apple screen, and any other option other than a Bloomberg-style bank of screens pales in comparison. You can have a desk full of screens but the vertical resolution is limited by the vertical resolution of each screen, which is normally <= 1280 - unless you tile displays (which requires fancy mounts and multi-screen arms, not to mention multiple graphics cards). The Apple 30" (and I presume the Dells) have 1600 vertical res. That setup wins every time. And having two of them is even better

Basically I've usually always said twin 1280x1024 decent 18" screens beats the 23" widescreen - however both get whipped by the 30" panel... will take a look at the 24" panel you're talking about, because it sounds like the technological advance that invalidates my argument

I still think colour gamut isn't a factor to ignore for the photographer though - or are all modern screens made with the best tech so good that it simply isn't a problem any more? The test-card pictures on monitor group-tests in magazines like PC Pro seem to suggest that there's still a large variance in colour performance across panels, though again I could be out of date. Showing my age, I guess.

Now the big question is what's next? Size-wise, more than 2 of the Apple screens are a waste of time - I need to swivel my head around to use the full area as it is. Ultra-high-resolution? 10,000x3,000 pixels? That'd be neat... though it'll need something more than DVI to supply...

[jagdpanther]

BLOOOOOOODY HELLL

What a techno argument and waaayyy too much information to digest the morning after heavy intake of ale

Im guessing overclockers would be a good place to buy from due to them offering up the in depth details of the panel tech and monitor features then?

[cjs]

If you are looking at the Samsung stuff then this may be a better option

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prod...


It's the same screen with VGA/DVI but also has built in TV tuner (analogue only) with Scart, HDMI Component and S video inputs. So you get a TV and Monitor.


I have just got one and am very happy with it. Got mine from E-buyer at £212. inc free delivery. It's also at Argos for around £220.00

http://www.ebuyer.com/product/132112

[Mattt]

jagdpanther said:

Im guessing overclockers would be a good place to buy from

Run by a PHer too

[jagdpanther]

Mattt said:

jagdpanther said:

Im guessing overclockers would be a good place to buy from

Run by a PHer too

ReeeheeeheeeeHHEEEAAALLLLLYY :Scratchchin:

Might have to have a word then

[That Daddy]

Dell all the way,and yes they have revisions of the same panel during production(dont they all)i dont know anyone who as been disappointed with their monitors