Does an extra 4" make a big difference?

Phideaux

Phideaux

Suspended / Banned
Messages
221
Edit My Images
Yes
My birthday's coming up and I'm going to get a new monitor to take over from my Sony 17".

Looking around I see various posts for monitors and some debate over whether they should have Samsung S-PVA, or the Phillips S-IPS panels and if the S-IPS is better for true colours (it seems that the TN panels aren't considered of sufficient quality for true colour reproduction). I'm not sure if the ms (g2g) responses time has any influence here as I'm not looking at moving images.

The Dell 20" Ultrasharp 2007WFP has a S-IPS panel whereas the 24" 2407WFP has a S-PVA panel. The 20" is now about £220 whereas the 24" is about £430

So the questions:
  1. Is there any real discernible difference between S-PVA and S-IPS?
  2. Does an extra 4" make a such a difference to make it worth spending twice as much?
Is there anyone out there who has a good knowledge of these matters and can offer the pros and cons? :thinking:
 
Well, the colours on S-IPS can look more life like if the monitor has a decent contrast ratio (700:1 and more seems to be enough).
The extra 4" probably may not mean much to you, but the extra resolution might. Also, bigger panels with S-PVA or S-IPS tend to be of a better quality than smaller ones, but it's better to check reviews before you buy. Always.
20" usually have pixel pitch of 0.255 mm, giving smoothest image among LCDs I've seen so far.
I have a Eizo L557 which uses the PVA technology and it's very nice, but after seeing some other brands out there (most of the decent ones, in fact), I have to say it seems that Eizo puts an extra 'touch' to their monitors. NECs seem to make very nice monitors with S-IPS, other brands usually have one or two decent models for graphics and photography per generation.
Manufacturers also change specs of their monitors without announcing it in public, they just change it on their web site (sometimes not even that).
I don't have any experience with DELL, as I don't like the brand.
 
Interestingly, it appears that almost all brands now rely on only three or four manufacturers for their TFT panels: L.G. Phillips and Samsung being the best known.

There is a good summary of the differences at http://www.pchardwarehelp.com/guides/lcd-panel-types.php.

However a Google search finds that technology reviews change at least twice a year and in 2005 it was predicted that the S-IPS technology would be phased out. I think that it depend on whether the reviews are for gamers / video editing rather than still image manipulation.
 
Indeed, most reviewers seem to be focusing on gamers and those who watch movies on their PCs, you might find some useful reviews for photography if you dig quite a bit, but not with many models.
It's a good link there, summarises what I've learned so far. And it does have a very good point about IPS based monitors, they are getting scarce now. It seems that most manufacturers focus on TN, maybe thinking "If it's cheap, it'll sell anyway" :p.
Honestly, I'm looking forward to OLED monitors (not so much for SED, as it seems they won't be as easy on the eyes as LCD or OLED monitors), but it's still a year or more before they come - if they'll be offered outside the TV segment.

Have a look at Eizo and NEC, as some of their models are very good PVAs (Eizo) or S-IPS (both). The others seem to have gone the cheap way, even Samsung, which offers S-PVA only for the few top models.
That said, TN panels have improved considerably and the latest ones are OK for home purposes, but their viewing angles are still not too good (but acceptable for home use) and colours shift, although not as much as they used to, but it's still worse than PVA models. They count on really high contrast ratios. While they do make the image pop more, it doesn't quite make up for the rest.
 
I can't comment on the IPS / PVA issue but I can say that having an extra 4" is good , but my wife found it difficult to get used to (innuendo over :D)

I was using a 17" 1280 x 1024 for photo work / gaming and I'm now using a 21.5" 1680 x 1050 and it was well worth the money. The extra workspace for tools etc in photwork is very usefull & the increased FOV is a boon in FPS games :)
 
Well, all I can say is that if the ladies have their choice of 20" or 24", then good luck to them. I'd imagine that the 24" could lead to eye strain if the position wasn't carefully chosen.
 
i have both monitors you mention, both are excellent. 24inch is a great to work on i must say but in reality you only gain extra desktop space on the sides 1920x1200 vs 1600x1200. good for the extra menus. you cant go wrong with either, but get the 24 inch if you can afford it though
 
sorry just read the post again its the 20 inch widescreen you stated not the 21inch, sorry. I have also had the 2007. I would forget it and go for the 24 inch. massive difference, you wont look back
 
Is the extra width worth it? Depends on what you use the monitor for. I've just added a 24" to my set up from a 19", and with Lightroom and Photoshop it makes a big difference.You get a lot more workspace.

Just a thought make sure your video card can handle the monitor, As a guide a 24 " monitor resolution will be 1280 x800, or 1680 x 1050 or 1920 x 1200
 
Is the extra width worth it...

I've 3 monitors I use

19" 1280x1024 ViewSonic (was and is damn fast at 3ms)
21" 1600x1200 DELL - work monitor
24" 1920x1200 DELL - primary home monitor

Which do I recomend.
The 1920x1200 by a long chalk. You get 2xA4 images side by side. Just make sure that your graphics card is up to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top