Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Re: AOC Monitors

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: AOC Monitors

 
 
Bruce Sinclair
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-29-2010
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, John Little <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On Sep 30, 10:29=A0am, Me <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>.... an interesting explanation...
>
>Thank you.


Seconded. Thanks.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Richard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-30-2010
On 29/09/2010 11:50 p.m., EMB wrote:
> On 29/09/2010 12:15 p.m., Dave Doe wrote:
>> In article<83d34d3c-baf7-433c-89ae-63da3b0b14a6
>> @u4g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) says...
>>>
>>> Have to disagree. To me, even the expensive CRTs lack the crispness
>>> and stability of a good LCD, especially LED ones.

>>
>> Oh they have advantages - the contrast and better than real-life colours
>> etc. (You can tweak a CRT to be about the same). But at the end of the
>> day, the "dot" on a CRT is smaller than a "dot" on an LCD - an many a
>> graphic artist has begrudged the move to LCD's. I guess this is partly
>> outweighed these days by the size of the big LCD's.
>>
>> Not sure what you mean by your comment - *good* CRT's are stable and
>> crisp.

>
> They are also resolution agnostic and can generally be run at higher
> resolutions[1] than comparable sized LCDs.
>
> [1] The f$#^ers at work have relieved me of my pair of 21" CRTs running
> at either 1600x1200 or 1920x1600 under the auspices of health & safety.
> The "best" replacement they have managed so far is a pair of 20" LCDs
> running at 1400x1050. The lack of screen real estate is really starting
> to **** me off so I'm campaigning for an upgrade (which now the cost has
> been seen may well end up being the return of my CRTs).


Yeah, no 19-20" full HD panels or greater which sucks.

have to go to 28" to see a decent res, and at that size the res is too
low so physical pixels are clearly visible, negating the higher resolution.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
~misfit~
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-30-2010
Somewhere on teh intarwebs Squiggle wrote:
> On 28/09/2010 10:15 p.m., Me threw some characters down the intarwebs:
>> On 28/09/2010 4:28 p.m., Richard wrote:
>>> On 28/09/2010 10:38 a.m., JohnO wrote:
>>>> On Sep 28, 7:02 am, "B Roberts"<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>> I am going to replace my old LCD monitor with a newer one.
>>>>> I noticed the AOC monitors are much cheaper than other makes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Has anyone had any experiences with these? Are they any good?
>>>>
>>>> A client of mine uses them - 22" 1600x1050 models. They are pixel
>>>> error free and crisp and clear. However I don't like the
>>>> back-lighting on them. It seems to give either poor contrast/low
>>>> brightness, or of you turn it up, a harsh whiteness.
>>>>
>>>> Still a lot better than a CRT though!
>>>
>>> Thats just the **** panel they use on them.
>>>
>>> The only LCD that comes close to competing with a CRT is a decent
>>> IPS panel, some of the others will give you a much greater gamut
>>> which is all they can bang on about, but that doesnt really matter
>>> when if you move 10 off axis it all changes like the cheap panels
>>> used in cheap monitors.

>> And VA panels aren't bad.
>> So how come you can get a 32" 1920x1080 TV with IPS panel (Panasonic,
>> probably LG and other brands) or VA panel (Samsung, Sony, and
>> probably other brands) for about $800, but a 24" IPS or VA computer
>> display will probably cost more?
>> Was looking at a small Sharp (19") TV the other day at Harvey
>> Normans, not full HD, but a really nice panel in it, for about $300.
>> Not sure if this was a panel made by Sharp (Aquos), but excellent
>> off-angle colour consistency, as many TVs that size use cheap TN
>> panels.
>>
>>

>
> Short answer.. probably because they can get away with it.
>
> Other reasons that could be genuine:
> Smaller pixels require tighter tolerances....


I think that's a big part of it. When you consider that IPS uses three
transistors per pixel compared to TN's one (therefore having three times the
potential for manufacturing faults) there's a lot more chance of faulty
units when everything is packed more tightly.

> Lower volumes
> Zero defect policy on the IPs panels generally.


That, combined with my previous comment would likely cause a hell of a lot
of them to be 'binned', resulting in a significantly higher price to the
consumer.
--
Shaun.

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a
monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also
into you." Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche


 
Reply With Quote
 
~misfit~
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-01-2010
Somewhere on teh intarwebs EMB wrote:
> On 29/09/2010 12:15 p.m., Dave Doe wrote:
>> In article<83d34d3c-baf7-433c-89ae-63da3b0b14a6
>> @u4g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, (E-Mail Removed) says...
>>>
>>> Have to disagree. To me, even the expensive CRTs lack the crispness
>>> and stability of a good LCD, especially LED ones.

>>
>> Oh they have advantages - the contrast and better than real-life
>> colours etc. (You can tweak a CRT to be about the same). But at
>> the end of the day, the "dot" on a CRT is smaller than a "dot" on an
>> LCD - an many a graphic artist has begrudged the move to LCD's. I
>> guess this is partly outweighed these days by the size of the big
>> LCD's. Not sure what you mean by your comment - *good* CRT's are stable
>> and
>> crisp.

>
> They are also resolution agnostic and can generally be run at higher
> resolutions[1] than comparable sized LCDs.
>
> [1] The f$#^ers at work have relieved me of my pair of 21" CRTs
> running at either 1600x1200 or 1920x1600 under the auspices of health
> & safety. The "best" replacement they have managed so far is a pair
> of 20" LCDs running at 1400x1050. The lack of screen real estate is
> really starting to **** me off so I'm campaigning for an upgrade
> (which now the cost has been seen may well end up being the return of
> my CRTs).


Maybe get them to get in touch with RCN and see if they still have the Dell
4:3 20" UXGA IPS monitors in stock?
--
Shaun.

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a
monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also
into you." Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche


 
Reply With Quote
 
Gib Bogle
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-01-2010
On 29/09/2010 4:58 p.m., Bruce Sinclair wrote:
> In article<i7u10c$gah$(E-Mail Removed)>, Me<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On 29/09/2010 12:52 p.m., victor wrote:
>>> On 29/09/2010 12:15 p.m., Dave Doe wrote:

> (snip)
>>> These days if you are a graphic artist it is most likely that your
>>> output is going to be viewed on an LCD screen, hardly anyone is going to
>>> see it on a CRT screen and neither is more representative of a printing
>>> or projection process.
>>>

>> There's certainly a load of potential issues with "wide gamut" displays,
>> colourspace across editors/viewers, lossy colourspace conversion, and
>> (more) limited gamut of other output devices.
>> But if your monitor is sRGB (or able to be set so) and calibrated
>> correctly, your printer capable of printing most of sRGB colourspace,
>> and you use Photoshop gamut warning, soft proof, including "simulate -
>> paper white", you can get pretty good print:screen matches without too
>> much trouble.
>> Beyond that, a can of worms begins to unravel, not helped by some very
>> spurious marketing claims.

>
> But most screens are RGB aren't they ? ... and most printers cmy(k) ? ...
> best of luck transposing between those spaces.


Inks, paint etc are absorbent - they absorb light of most wavelengths and
reflect the rest. The little dots on the screen emit light with a specified
wavelength band. These two processes are very different, and this is why
printers need CMYK while screens need RGB.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce Sinclair
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-03-2010
In article <i83fh4$hgf$(E-Mail Removed)>, Gib Bogle <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On 29/09/2010 4:58 p.m., Bruce Sinclair wrote:

(snip)
>> But most screens are RGB aren't they ? ... and most printers cmy(k) ? ...
>> best of luck transposing between those spaces.

>
>Inks, paint etc are absorbent - they absorb light of most wavelengths and
>reflect the rest. The little dots on the screen emit light with a specified
>wavelength band. These two processes are very different, and this is why
>printers need CMYK while screens need RGB.


Oh, I know why they do it, but have yet to hear of the mapping between the
spaces being anything except a problem.

Thanks
 
Reply With Quote
 
Me
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-04-2010
On 4/10/2010 12:14 p.m., Bruce Sinclair wrote:
> In article<i83fh4$hgf$(E-Mail Removed)>, Gib Bogle<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On 29/09/2010 4:58 p.m., Bruce Sinclair wrote:

> (snip)
>>> But most screens are RGB aren't they ? ... and most printers cmy(k) ? ...
>>> best of luck transposing between those spaces.

>>
>> Inks, paint etc are absorbent - they absorb light of most wavelengths and
>> reflect the rest. The little dots on the screen emit light with a specified
>> wavelength band. These two processes are very different, and this is why
>> printers need CMYK while screens need RGB.

>
> Oh, I know why they do it, but have yet to hear of the mapping between the
> spaces being anything except a problem.
>
> Thanks


Here's what sRGB (outer coloured) colourspace looks like compared to a 6
colour inkjet (grey) on premium OEM paper, claimed by the manufacturer
to cover "106%" (IIRC) of sRGB colourspace in a 3d chart (this is from
the WinXP "color applet", unfortunately not available with 3d projection
capability in Vista/Win7).
http://i52.tinypic.com/2lkz32d.jpg
Yes - the gamut exceeds sRGB in some peaks, but falls well within sRGB
through much of the range. It would be fair to say that the printer
maker's claims are wildly exaggerated. (OTOH, the available gamut is
significantly wider than wet-process colour photo printing)
This is AdobeRGB (grey) over sRGB (coloured), showing that the increased
"stretched out" gamut is most noticeable in very saturated green.
http://i52.tinypic.com/10n7wia.jpg
So Adobe RGB offers increased gamut mainly in areas that can't be
utilised in CMYK print. It's one reason why I don't believe wide gamut
displays, and use of wide gamut colourspace is very useful for
photography. There are other reasons.
 
Reply With Quote
 
William Brown
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-04-2010
On Mon, 04 Oct 2010 14:57:27 +1300, Me <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 4/10/2010 12:14 p.m., Bruce Sinclair wrote:
>> In article<i83fh4$hgf$(E-Mail Removed)>, Gib Bogle<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> On 29/09/2010 4:58 p.m., Bruce Sinclair wrote:

>> (snip)
>>>> But most screens are RGB aren't they ? ... and most printers cmy(k) ? ...
>>>> best of luck transposing between those spaces.
>>>
>>> Inks, paint etc are absorbent - they absorb light of most wavelengths and
>>> reflect the rest. The little dots on the screen emit light with a specified
>>> wavelength band. These two processes are very different, and this is why
>>> printers need CMYK while screens need RGB.

>>
>> Oh, I know why they do it, but have yet to hear of the mapping between the
>> spaces being anything except a problem.
>>
>> Thanks

>
>Here's what sRGB (outer coloured) colourspace looks like compared to a 6
>colour inkjet (grey) on premium OEM paper, claimed by the manufacturer
>to cover "106%" (IIRC) of sRGB colourspace in a 3d chart (this is from
>the WinXP "color applet", unfortunately not available with 3d projection
>capability in Vista/Win7).
>http://i52.tinypic.com/2lkz32d.jpg
>Yes - the gamut exceeds sRGB in some peaks, but falls well within sRGB
>through much of the range. It would be fair to say that the printer
>maker's claims are wildly exaggerated. (OTOH, the available gamut is
>significantly wider than wet-process colour photo printing)
>This is AdobeRGB (grey) over sRGB (coloured), showing that the increased
>"stretched out" gamut is most noticeable in very saturated green.
>http://i52.tinypic.com/10n7wia.jpg
>So Adobe RGB offers increased gamut mainly in areas that can't be
>utilised in CMYK print. It's one reason why I don't believe wide gamut
>displays, and use of wide gamut colourspace is very useful for
>photography. There are other reasons.




Then you must be the Only one..

 
Reply With Quote
 
Me
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-04-2010
On 4/10/2010 5:20 p.m., William Brown wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Oct 2010 14:57:27 +1300, Me<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On 4/10/2010 12:14 p.m., Bruce Sinclair wrote:
>>> In article<i83fh4$hgf$(E-Mail Removed)>, Gib Bogle<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> On 29/09/2010 4:58 p.m., Bruce Sinclair wrote:
>>> (snip)
>>>>> But most screens are RGB aren't they ? ... and most printers cmy(k) ? ...
>>>>> best of luck transposing between those spaces.
>>>>
>>>> Inks, paint etc are absorbent - they absorb light of most wavelengths and
>>>> reflect the rest. The little dots on the screen emit light with a specified
>>>> wavelength band. These two processes are very different, and this is why
>>>> printers need CMYK while screens need RGB.
>>>
>>> Oh, I know why they do it, but have yet to hear of the mapping between the
>>> spaces being anything except a problem.
>>>
>>> Thanks

>>
>> Here's what sRGB (outer coloured) colourspace looks like compared to a 6
>> colour inkjet (grey) on premium OEM paper, claimed by the manufacturer
>> to cover "106%" (IIRC) of sRGB colourspace in a 3d chart (this is from
>> the WinXP "color applet", unfortunately not available with 3d projection
>> capability in Vista/Win7).
>> http://i52.tinypic.com/2lkz32d.jpg
>> Yes - the gamut exceeds sRGB in some peaks, but falls well within sRGB
>> through much of the range. It would be fair to say that the printer
>> maker's claims are wildly exaggerated. (OTOH, the available gamut is
>> significantly wider than wet-process colour photo printing)
>> This is AdobeRGB (grey) over sRGB (coloured), showing that the increased
>> "stretched out" gamut is most noticeable in very saturated green.
>> http://i52.tinypic.com/10n7wia.jpg
>> So Adobe RGB offers increased gamut mainly in areas that can't be
>> utilised in CMYK print. It's one reason why I don't believe wide gamut
>> displays, and use of wide gamut colourspace is very useful for
>> photography. There are other reasons.

>
>
>
> Then you must be the Only one..
>

?
No I'm not. I think you'll find that even some senior developers for
Adobe Systems have voiced serious concerns about wide gamut display and
wide gamut colourspace for photography.
One issue is that smallest adjustment increment in 8 bit per channel
(0-255 "levels") in wide gamut colourspaces well exceeds delta E 1.0.
Another is that RGB colorimeters used for calibration generally don't
work very well with wide gamut displays.
10 bit display port colour card/displays are available now, though it
will take a while for software to catch up, you can use a
spectrophotometer for calibration (expensive), but even so, despite
"peaks" of printer capability being >sRGB (and even aRGB), photo
printing processes are well short of covering full sRGB colourspace
(despite manufacturer BS).
It's a can of worms, not worth opening (IMO) for anyone but the most
serious graphic artists with very big budgets.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Gib Bogle
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-04-2010
On 4/10/2010 12:14 p.m., Bruce Sinclair wrote:
> In article<i83fh4$hgf$(E-Mail Removed)>, Gib Bogle<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On 29/09/2010 4:58 p.m., Bruce Sinclair wrote:

> (snip)
>>> But most screens are RGB aren't they ? ... and most printers cmy(k) ? ...
>>> best of luck transposing between those spaces.

>>
>> Inks, paint etc are absorbent - they absorb light of most wavelengths and
>> reflect the rest. The little dots on the screen emit light with a specified
>> wavelength band. These two processes are very different, and this is why
>> printers need CMYK while screens need RGB.

>
> Oh, I know why they do it, but have yet to hear of the mapping between the
> spaces being anything except a problem.
>
> Thanks


Agreed.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cheap 17" LCD Monitors (AOC. CMV etc.) Daniel NZ Computing 4 11-11-2004 08:45 PM
Re: Are LCD Monitors Brigter than CRT Monitors Martin Digital Photography 0 09-08-2004 04:09 PM
19" monitors- Mag or AOC? Dane NZ Computing 5 11-23-2003 10:28 PM
AOC monitors samg NZ Computing 58 11-12-2003 04:42 AM
AOC monitor question ~misfit~ NZ Computing 22 08-20-2003 02:37 PM



Advertisments