IPS or VA display?

[donline]

Hi folks,

I'm looking to get an external monitor for my laptop. I'd like one that is flicker-free and with the clearest display. I plan to use the laptop for light video and image editing, but not for gaming.

I was looking at monitors around 23inch, as some people have said that 27inch monitors at HD (1920 x 1080) resolution don't display text etc very clearly... is this true?

What might be best for me in terms of VA vs IPS monitor?

I've found the following and wondered how they compare (and which is best for me):

Asus VS229HA 21.5 inch Widescreen Full HD VA LED Monitor £100
https/www.amazon.co.uk/VS229HA-Widescreen-Monitor-192...

Asus VC239H 23inch Full HD IPS LCD Monitor £120
https/www.amazon.co.uk/Asus-VC239H-inch-Full-Monitor/...

ViewSonic VX2363SMHL 23-Inch FHD SuperClear IPS LED Monitor £120
https/www.amazon.co.uk/ViewSonic-VX2363SMHL-23-Inch-S...

ViewSonic VA2465SMH 24-Inch SuperClear VA LED Monitor £118
https/www.amazon.co.uk/ViewSonic-VA2465SMH-24-Inch-Su...

Samsung S24E390HL 24- Inch LED PLS £135
https/www.amazon.co.uk/Samsung-S24E390HL-Inch-HDMI-Mo...

Many thanks!

 

[Solandri]

For video and image editing, you want to stick with IPS or its equivalents. IPS is trademarked by LG. PLS is Samsung's version. AHVA is AUO's version. All three do pretty much the same thing, but in slightly different ways so as not to stomp on each others' patents. I suppose OLED is becoming an option now and is the de facto best choice, but is still horribly expensive.

VA actually has better blacks (IPS and its variants tend to suffer from backlight bleed and bleed at off-angles), but its color reproduction is not as good.

And yes, you will notice the pixels on a 24" 1080p screen if you look carefully enough (it's obvious even to my middle-aged eyes). On a 27" the pixels will be blindingly obvious, so I do not recommend 27" 1080p monitors. Do note however that this is partially dependent on how close you sit to the screen. If getting a 23" instead of 27" means you'll sit closer to the monitor, the pixels may still be obvious.

 

[donline]

For video and image editing, you want to stick with IPS or its equivalents. IPS is trademarked by LG. PLS is Samsung's version. AHVA is AUO's version. All three do pretty much the same thing, but in slightly different ways so as not to stomp on each others' patents. I suppose OLED is becoming an option now and is the de facto best choice, but is still horribly expensive.

VA actually has better blacks (IPS and its variants tend to suffer from backlight bleed and bleed at off-angles), but its color reproduction is not as good.

And yes, you will notice the pixels on a 24" 1080p screen if you look carefully enough (it's obvious even to my middle-aged eyes). On a 27" the pixels will be blindingly obvious, so I do not recommend 27" 1080p monitors. Do note however that this is partially dependent on how close you sit to the screen. If getting a 23" instead of 27" means you'll sit closer to the monitor, the pixels may still be obvious.

Thanks Solandri! I'm leaning towards the ViewSonic VX2363SMHL 23-Inch FHD SuperClear IPS LED Monitor (http/www.viewsonic.com.au/products/lcd/VX2363Smhl-W.php#pSpecs). When looking at the specs it says 'active matrix TFT LCD (AH-IPS Panel)' and 'LED backlight'... so is this an LED monitor or LCD? Is the technology used in this monitor good (I thought LCD was an old and possibly unsafe technology)? Any info much appreciated!

 

[Solandri]

Both LED and LCD monitors use LCD panels. The only difference is that LCD monitors used CCFL (cold cathode fluorescent lamps) for their backlight. LED monitors use LEDs for their backlight.

The CCFL backlights had slightly better color reproduction, but their output brightness and color changed with age, forcing you to recalibrate your screen every month or so for accurate color work. They also would burn out after about 5 years of use. They were only rated for about 20,000-40,000 hours (that's 2.3-4.6 years of constantly being on). LEDs are typically rated 50,000-100,000 hours.

The fluorescent technology meant there needed to be a capacitor inside which helped step up the lithium battery's 3.7V output into the thousand or so Volts needed to light the fluorescent tube. If you attempted to repair your screen within a few seconds or minutes of turning it off, this capacitor could still be holding a substantial charge. if you touched it, you could give yourself quite a shock. I've heard of people shocking themselves this way (a friend of mine actually did it with an old CRT, and the bastard tried to trick me into doing it too). Theoretically the shock could cause your heart to stop beating and kill you, but I've never heard of that actually happening.

Eliminating that capacitor, lower cost, and smaller packaging means nearly everything uses LED backlights nowadays.

The LEDs aren't as good at color reproduction because the cheapest way to make white light is to use a blue LED with yellow phosphors. The yellow phosphor produces enough red and green for an RGB monitor to function, but let's just say the red and green aren't "pure" (because I don't want to get into a long discussion about the eye's color receptors and color reproduction). Consequently, cheaper LED panels (often used in laptops and other devices like baby monitors) cannot reproduce the full sRGB color space which is the current standard for HDTVs and the web. However, nearly all external monitors are built better and can hit 100% sRGB.

Unfortunately, sRGB is not a very big color gamut (it was designed with early LCD displays in mind). Looking towards the future, if this video and image editing becomes serious or a profession, you will probably want a display which covers the AdobeRGB color space (it's roughly the same as the NTSC color space used in the old CRT days). These are typically made using separate red, green, and blue LEDs. Unfortunately, they're very pricey so probably aren't a good choice for someone just dabbling in graphics and video. But it's something to keep in mind for the future. OLED displays can actually exceed AdobeRGB, so I'm hoping the future is filled with OLED monitors.

 

[donline]

Both LED and LCD monitors use LCD panels. The only difference is that LCD monitors used CCFL (cold cathode fluorescent lamps) for their backlight. LED monitors use LEDs for their backlight.

The CCFL backlights had slightly better color reproduction, but their output brightness and color changed with age, forcing you to recalibrate your screen every month or so for accurate color work. They also would burn out after about 5 years of use. They were only rated for about 20,000-40,000 hours (that's 2.3-4.6 years of constantly being on). LEDs are typically rated 50,000-100,000 hours.

The fluorescent technology meant there needed to be a capacitor inside which helped step up the lithium battery's 3.7V output into the thousand or so Volts needed to light the fluorescent tube. If you attempted to repair your screen within a few seconds or minutes of turning it off, this capacitor could still be holding a substantial charge. if you touched it, you could give yourself quite a shock. I've heard of people shocking themselves this way (a friend of mine actually did it with an old CRT, and the bastard tried to trick me into doing it too). Theoretically the shock could cause your heart to stop beating and kill you, but I've never heard of that actually happening.

Eliminating that capacitor, lower cost, and smaller packaging means nearly everything uses LED backlights nowadays.

The LEDs aren't as good at color reproduction because the cheapest way to make white light is to use a blue LED with yellow phosphors. The yellow phosphor produces enough red and green for an RGB monitor to function, but let's just say the red and green aren't "pure" (because I don't want to get into a long discussion about the eye's color receptors and color reproduction). Consequently, cheaper LED panels (often used in laptops and other devices like baby monitors) cannot reproduce the full sRGB color space which is the current standard for HDTVs and the web. However, nearly all external monitors are built better and can hit 100% sRGB.

Unfortunately, sRGB is not a very big color gamut (it was designed with early LCD displays in mind). Looking towards the future, if this video and image editing becomes serious or a profession, you will probably want a display which covers the AdobeRGB color space (it's roughly the same as the NTSC color space used in the old CRT days). These are typically made using separate red, green, and blue LEDs. Unfortunately, they're very pricey so probably aren't a good choice for someone just dabbling in graphics and video. But it's something to keep in mind for the future. OLED displays can actually exceed AdobeRGB, so I'm hoping the future is filled with OLED monitors.

Thank you so much Solandri for your super detailed and interesting response!

I too am looking forward to OLED monitors becoming more widespread and affordable : - )

In the mean time, I'm need to get an external monitor for my laptop that is flicker-free and with good quality display. Which would you choose between the following two monitors?

Asus VC239H 23inch Full HD IPS LCD Monitor
https/www.amazon.co.uk/Asus-VC239H-inch-Full-Monitor/dp/B00YQKTGR8/ref=sr_1_5?s=computers&ie=UTF8&qid=1468430867&sr=1-5&keywords=flicker+free+monitor

ViewSonic VX2363SMHL 23-Inch FHD SuperClear IPS LED Monitor
https/www.amazon.co.uk/ViewSonic-VX2363SMHL-23-Inch-SuperClear-Monitor/dp/B00WY71S80/ref=sr_1_7?s=computers&ie=UTF8&qid=1468431425&sr=1-7&keywords=flicker+free+ips

Thanks again!