Still Looking for LCD Nirvana
If you're a bit confused by this "review" of the BenQ FP241VW, I apologize. As mentioned, the display was discontinued not long after I received it, but I felt the A-MVA panel was interesting enough that it warranted a technology piece - especially when you consider the current trends away from quality LCD panels. Right now, it appears that A-MVA gets you similar viewing angles to IPS and PVA displays, along with processing lag that competes very favorably with TN and IPS panels. In the case of the FP241VW, color accuracy and color gamut are lower than average, but that a better backlight could address that shortcoming.
When you get right down to it, most people won't notice the difference between IPS, PVA, or MVA unless they use a colorimeter and calibration software. Well, that's not entirely true, as in my experience you will definitely notice the display lag on S-PVA panels. The real question is what causes this lag and whether or not it can be fixed. I have a hunch that the lag has more to do with signal processing used to enhance the image quality rather than the LCD panel itself, in which case upgraded processors and microcode could address the situation. Ironically, earlier S-PVA panels showed less processing lag than the current high-end S-PVA panels that we've tested, so for whatever reason Samsung seems to be going in the wrong direction in regards to eliminating lag. I've discussed this with several manufacturers over the past year, and quite a few seemed totally unaware of this concern. Hopefully that will start to change, and that's part of the reason you're seeing this article.
Going back to a macro overview of the LCD market, it's disconcerting to see the trends that have developed over the past year or two. Four years ago, if you purchased a 24" or larger LCD you were virtually guaranteed a top quality LCD panel. Sure, the Dell 2405FPW originally sold for over $1300, but that price dropped quite rapidly to around $700, and the quality of the 2407WFP improved on the 2405FPW. Notice the trend: lower prices and better quality. That's what we want to see - or at the very least keep prices static while increasing quality or keep quality static while reducing prices. The last two years have unfortunately started a different trend: reduce prices on entry-level displays and ship them with lower quality panels, or increase prices on higher end displays without dramatically improving the overall quality.
Continuing with Dell as an example, the current 2408WFP will sometimes go on sale for under $500, but the normal price is still $600. In other words, Dell's 24" S-PVA LCDs have essentially maintained the same pricing for over two years. On the other hand, Dell also sells a newer S2409W 24" 1080p LCD with a regular price of $280, currently on sale for $200. That's half the price, but as you probably guessed it also includes a TN panel, fewer input options, no flash memory reader, and a far more limited base stand. It's not a bad LCD by any means, but don't expect $200 to get you a display that will rival a good $700 24" LCDs from several years ago. And let's not even get started on the trend towards glossy panels….
At this stage, I'm actually okay with the pricing on LCDs: you get what you pay for. What I'd really like to see going forward is a greater focus on improving quality, features, and performance rather than an apparently single-minded focus on reducing costs and pricing. The BenQ FP241VW is a prime example of the current trends, specifically in the fact that it is discontinued and yet still outperforms many of the new models. Granted, with an original MSRP of over $900 there was no way I'd recommend it - especially not with 30" IPS displays going for only slightly more - but with a price under $500 it would have some clear advantages over both TN and PVA displays. Hopefully BenQ - or someone else - can take the technologies in the FP241VW and make a newer, more affordable display without sacrificing other features. Oh yeah: forget the silly display stand while you're at it and give us height adjustment and rotate functionality at the very least. If they had a different stand, faster OSD, and better backlight (and the monitor were available at a variety of resellers for under $600), the FP241VW could have been Editors' Choice material.
If you want an inexpensive 24" LCD, it's safe to assume that you're not after top image quality. In that case, you can pick up virtually any of the new 24" 1080p displays and be happy with your purchase. Some will struggle with supporting non-native resolutions properly, but you normally don't want to run at anything but native resolution so that's not a huge concern. With prices starting at $250 (or $200 on sale), that's a heck of a lot of monitor for a very low price. Four years ago, I was writing Buyers' Guides and recommending 19" CRTs for about the same price, and there's no way I would choose a CRT today over an inexpensive 22" or larger TN-based LCD. However, we still need more choice, specifically in terms of quality.
We want to see - in no particularly order - high color gamuts, great color accuracy, good viewing angles, base stands that support height/pivot/rotate adjustments, a good selection of inputs (preferably multiple digital inputs), and no processing lag. We would also like to see more displays support higher refresh rates; right now you can get 120 Hz LCDs, but they're all TN panels. So give us all of the above, but keep the price close to (preferrably under) $500, and you'll have my ideal 24" LCD. All of the technologies exist to produce such a display, but the question is whether there's enough demand, and whether they can keep the price reasonable. As basic economics teaches us, demand affects pricing, so if most people are now happy buying inexpensive TN panels it's unlikely that we're going to see any dramatic changes. That being the case, we might just have to wait for OLEDs to come down in price before we see a true revolution in display technologies and quality.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
114 Comments
View All Comments
praeses - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
After using this particular monitor as my primary display at home for well over a year I have fairly decent experience with it. Nearly all of my concerns are reflected in this review. Having said that there are a few aspects I would like to point out:The input lag varies significantly from inputs and resolution. Using DVI at 1920x1200 yields the lowest while analogue at any other resolution is significantly higher. Using any of the different lighting modes adds lag as well. For my purposes I have them turned off.
VGA also seems to be quite washed out. It has troubles with certain timings as well including XBOX360 where it cannot compensate for the overscan. The composite inputs are reasonable although when scaled any signal distortion is amplified significantly.
Of course, the fluorescent backlight is annoying. As a previous commenter has implied that using LCDs do not result in headaches, that is far from the truth. Once manufacturers move towards LED backlighting hopefully some of that will be alleviated. To date I have been unsuccessful at tracking down a suitable LED panel to swap into this monitor. The non-adjustable backlighting is also significantly annoying in low light conditions with some bleeding, although fairly consistent throughout the panel appearing gray.
The headphone connection only working for audio over HDMI just seems silly. They should have included an analogue pass-through.
Prior to purchasing this monitor I was aware of most of these issues and they are consistent between screens. Some people have buyer's pride and dismiss it or do not see them to begin with. Despite this, I am quite happy with this monitor and have not found a better replacement for my uses where viewing angles, input lag (over DVI), and composite inputs are paramount.
Spacecomber - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
I think the reason that the trend with LCDs is simply to make them cheaper and not better has a lot to do with there being no meaningful specifications that the consumer can use to compare one monitor to another. In many cases, you can't even tell what kind of panel is being used. (Imagine buying a CRT monitor and not being able to easily tell whether it was a shadow-mask or an aperture grill tube.)With no meaningful information about the monitor in its technical specifications, the only thing the consumer can easily determine is relative price differences.
At this point, it is pretty clear that the industry manufacturing LCDs has no motivation to redress this on their own. I don't know who might be in the best position try to change this, but outside pressure (if not outright regulation) needs to be applied, if there is any hope of making manufacturers compete on a level playing field, when it comes to what a particular monitor really is capable of.
I suspect that respected professional computer hardware review publications, such as Anandtech, could wield some clout in pursuit of this end, and I hope that they pick up the banner.
darklight0tr - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
I agree. The panel type should be disclosed in the specifications for all LCDs so the consumer knows what they are getting. Right now you have trudge through the bowels of the Internet just to find what panel is being used for a particular display, since most of the time it isn't disclosed.The technical specifications are also suspect because the "tests" used aren't standardized or controlled in any meaningful fashion. That's how you can have 2ms LCDs that really are 10ms or higher. Same thing with contrast ratios, especially dynamic ones. I'm just waiting for the LCD that has Infinity:1 contrast ratio. That's the one for me!
tomoyo - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
Companies will never do this for one big reason. Profit. They profit from the lack of real specifications on lcds that allows them to make even low end lcds seem to be good. And most people don't care at all. We're the few that actually try to give good advice on avoiding crap lcds, but we can't fight against the huge tide of mindless consumers.JarredWalton - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
Don't forget the other reason a lot of companies don't like to disclose the type of LCD panel they use: they don't want to be "locked in" to a specific LCD panel. If they were to advertise that the display uses, for example, an S-PVA panel, they wouldn't be able to switch to less expensive TN down the road -- or perhaps IPS or MVA. High quality displays generally don't change panels midway through the production run, but the same can't be said of less expensive models.tomoyo - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
No kidding. I remember all that panel lottery madness with those Samsung TN-films such as the 226BW. It was ridiculous when there were 4 possible panels you could receive from one monitor model. Same thing with the Dell IPS/S-PVA lottery from long ago. It's dishonest how little they care about the quality of the product that we get.I'm glad my friend got a Benq FP241W with a similar MVA panel to the one you just reviewed a couple years ago for around $600. Probably the best pickup for a 24" at the time. (and he was lucky not to experience problems like some have).
alexdi - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
The lag numbers for the Dell 2408WFP are incorrect as of revision A01, which replaced A00 four months ago. A01 lag is significantly reduced and identical to the 2407WFP A04. I have had all three screens at once to verify this.fmyhr - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
http://www.kwiksurveys.com/online-survey.php?surve...">http://www.kwiksurveys.com/online-survey.php?surve...If you would like to be able to buy a ThinkPad or other business-class notebook with a premium screen, please take the survey at the above url when you can spare a couple of minutes.
Survey results are here:
http://forums.lenovo.com/lnv/board/message?board.i...">http://forums.lenovo.com/lnv/board/mess...al_Inter...
Thanks for your help!
GTaudiophile - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
I spent a few months doing research, trying to find a 24" replacement for my really old DELL 2001FP.It more or less came down to the DELL 2408WFP and the HP LP2475w. But I just read too many negative reviews, calibration issues, etc. to feel that either was a safe bet of my $550.00 USD.
What am I looking for? 24". 1920x1200. 1080P. 16:9. Something "approved" by photographers for photo editing / color accuracy. But something that can also be a decent gaming monitor when needed. Something that will allow me to be on the net for hours without causing too much eye fatigue. And finally costs around $500 or less.
In the end, I quit my search for now, unsatisfied with current market offerings. If the "Stickied LCD" thread in the Video Cards & Graphics forum is any indication, I am not the only frustrated person out there.
haplo602 - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
I want to buy the HP screen you mentioned. What negatives did you find about it ? I did only find favorable reviews.