Re: AOC Monitors

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by JohnO, Sep 27, 2010.

  1. In article <>, John Little <> wrote:
    >On Sep 30, 10:29=A0am, Me <> wrote:
    >
    >.... an interesting explanation...
    >
    >Thank you.


    Seconded. Thanks. :)
     
    Bruce Sinclair, Sep 30, 2010
    #21
    1. Advertising

  2. JohnO

    Richard Guest

    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>, 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 piss 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.
     
    Richard, Sep 30, 2010
    #22
    1. Advertising

  3. JohnO

    ~misfit~ Guest

    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"<> 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 shit 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
     
    ~misfit~, Oct 1, 2010
    #23
  4. JohnO

    ~misfit~ Guest

    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>, 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 piss 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
     
    ~misfit~, Oct 1, 2010
    #24
  5. JohnO

    Gib Bogle Guest

    On 29/09/2010 4:58 p.m., Bruce Sinclair wrote:
    > In article<i7u10c$gah$>, Me<> 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.
     
    Gib Bogle, Oct 1, 2010
    #25
  6. In article <i83fh4$hgf$>, Gib Bogle <> 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
     
    Bruce Sinclair, Oct 4, 2010
    #26
  7. JohnO

    Me Guest

    On 4/10/2010 12:14 p.m., Bruce Sinclair wrote:
    > In article<i83fh4$hgf$>, Gib Bogle<> 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.
     
    Me, Oct 4, 2010
    #27
  8. On Mon, 04 Oct 2010 14:57:27 +1300, Me <> wrote:

    >On 4/10/2010 12:14 p.m., Bruce Sinclair wrote:
    >> In article<i83fh4$hgf$>, Gib Bogle<> 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..
     
    William Brown, Oct 4, 2010
    #28
  9. JohnO

    Me Guest

    On 4/10/2010 5:20 p.m., William Brown wrote:
    > On Mon, 04 Oct 2010 14:57:27 +1300, Me<> wrote:
    >
    >> On 4/10/2010 12:14 p.m., Bruce Sinclair wrote:
    >>> In article<i83fh4$hgf$>, Gib Bogle<> 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.
     
    Me, Oct 4, 2010
    #29
  10. JohnO

    Gib Bogle Guest

    On 4/10/2010 12:14 p.m., Bruce Sinclair wrote:
    > In article<i83fh4$hgf$>, Gib Bogle<> 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. :)
     
    Gib Bogle, Oct 4, 2010
    #30
  11. In message <i8b2pc$m87$-september.org>, Bruce Sinclair wrote:

    > In article <i83fh4$hgf$>, Gib Bogle
    > <> wrote:
    >>
    >>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. :)


    The main problem really has been that printer inks and pigments just don’t
    have the same wide range of colours (gamut) as emissive devices (display
    screens). It is quite possible for image-editing software to restrict its
    on-screen display to the smaller printed gamut. Then you get fidelity to the
    printed page, at the expense of the colours no longer looking so good.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 11, 2010
    #31
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. ~misfit~

    AOC monitor question

    ~misfit~, Aug 18, 2003, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    818
  2. samg

    AOC monitors

    samg, Nov 5, 2003, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    58
    Views:
    1,747
  3. Evil Bastard

    LCD monitor - AOC LM-720 1280x1024

    Evil Bastard, Nov 10, 2003, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    456
    Gregory Parker
    Nov 10, 2003
  4. Dane

    19" monitors- Mag or AOC?

    Dane, Nov 23, 2003, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    407
    Gregory Parker
    Nov 23, 2003
  5. Daniel

    Cheap 17" LCD Monitors (AOC. CMV etc.)

    Daniel, Nov 11, 2004, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    495
    Daniel
    Nov 11, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page