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
alantay - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
"For better or worse, LCDs are here to stay and CRTs are a dying breed"A bit off topic to the review itself, but since you mentioned it: At the time LCDs were taking over the market, they were 2-3 times more expensive than CRTs. They absolutely could not compete in speed (input lag was unknown before LCDs came around), they absolutely could not compete in viewing angles (idem), They could not compete in color and contrast, they absolutely could not compete in "natural look" (things look perfectly natural in a CRT monitor and very unnatural in a LCD one). And obviously, they could not compete in price. Yet, 90%+ of the people buying a new monitor were choosing an LCD. Why?
The obvious advantage of LCDs was exterior design. They're very good looking monitors when compared with the ugly and bulky CRTs. But then again, is exterior design so important for something like a monitor as to pay 3 times more for something 10 times worse??? Oh, LCDs were a new technology, I guess some people also like anything new (even if worse). But...
Still a mystery to me... (writing this using my -very- old CRT).
Rindis - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link
"The obvious advantage of LCDs was exterior design. They're very good looking monitors when compared with the ugly and bulky CRTs."No, the obvious advantage is weight and volume. It is much easier to find a place to park a screen (especially a larger one), when you don't have have as much room in back of it as to the sides.
strikeback03 - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link
Now I'll admit that I never used a top-quality CRT (best I have ever used were some large ViewSonics) but IMO the only advantage they hold over even 5-year old LCDs is the viewing angles (vs TN). LCDs don't vibrate all over the place, they don't need fooling around with the video card to keep refresh rates up, text is actually sharp, and, of course, you can get a decent sized one without worries about lifting it.TA152H - Saturday, June 20, 2009 - link
CRTs are much better than LCDs at certain things. The reverse is also true.If you have very good eyes, looking at an LCD is like looking through a screen door. You can see the small divisions between pixels easily.
By contrast, CRTs have much richer pictures, without these barriers.
I hated LCDs, but bought one anyway just to give them a try. When I am using it, I get used to all the flaws of it, and don't mind it at all. Then when I look at a CRT, I'm annoyed by the moire issues, and other irregularities. This is at higher resolutions though, at lower resolutions, the CRT is just better except for logistics. So, I really prefer the LCD when that's what I've been using. But, if I am using a CRT, and then go to an LCD, it looks lifeless and dull, and the screen door issue irritates the Hell out of me.
Anything at or less than 800x600 is clearly the advantage of the CRT. It's got few if no issues, and has much better color saturation. Above that though, where it really matters, it's really personal preference. No one can say that one is clearly better than the other, they are better at different things and we all have to make a choice (well, it's almost been made for us now). Heck, I can't even say which I prefer. I do like the low glare of LCDs a lot though, but now I see some with mirror like finishes. That's really strange. I don't know why people would want these, especially on a laptop with a lot of ambient light.
Griswold - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
No, you forgot the number one reason: no headaches and eyestrain compared to those god forsaken CRTs.The0ne - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link
yep, good riddance to those CRT monitors. yay for my eyes! :)JarredWalton - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
It depends on what you're comparing: a top quality CRT to a typical LCD at launch, yes, the CRT would win in most areas. But...LCDs have perfect geometry when using a digital signal, they weigh less, brightness levels look better on most models, and did I mention size? LOL... Actually, the geometry adjustment stuff on CRTs is one thing I'm happy to NEVER have to do again. Trapezoidal, rotational, pincushion, etc. distortion sucked, and you had to adjust for each resolution and refresh rate.
What I miss - and the only thing I really miss! - is the 100+ Hz refresh rates. Even the current 120Hz LCDs don't generally do a 120Hz signal (that would require dual-link DVI at 1920x1200); they just refresh the content more frequently. (I might be wrong on this - some displays may actually support a 120Hz signal?) Oh, and I suppose I also miss true blacks on occasion, but with most games being developed on LCDs there were times when having "true black" was a problem (i.e. Doom 3 - I thought the game was unplayable until I tried it on my then-new 2405FPW LCD).
Mastakilla - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
you are right about most 120hz displays not being really 120hzyou are also right about real 120hz @ 1920x1200 requiring dual link DVI
there do exist some REAL 120hz 1650x1080 displays though (I think Viewsonic has one for example)
TA152H - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
If you want to find a quality monitor, review an Eizo. They've been the best monitors for 20 years, and you can't compare junk from BenQ, ViewSonic, et al with them. The only problem is cost, but, if you're just focused on quality, nothing comes close.Prove me wrong. Review one of their high end monitors and then see if you hit the UPS man over the head when he comes to take it back.
Once you get used to them, it's a hard habit to break, and an expensive habit to keep.
erple2 - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
That was true 20 years ago when we all had CRT's - it was very hard to beat an Eizo / Nanao in picture quality.However, the LCD era kind of changed all of that. Eizo makes some nice panels, sure, but they're really not the best. There's a couple of superb NEC monitor out there at the 1200-2200 price range (the 2490 and 3090 models), plus at least 2 HP 24" monitors (the 2475w and 2480zs) that are as good or better than anything Eizo puts out.
I think the "problem" now is that there are only a few manufacturers of the panels, so there's only so much any reseller can do.