I’m considering a Matrox Triplehead2go Digital box for surround gaming and need 3 1280x1024 19” Monitors. 2ms LG’s have thin bezels(thin frame around screen) and seem ideal so I went to a local store to view. Alongside the LG’s were monitors from a cheap H.P. computer package and the difference in clarity and sharpness was remarkable; they were glass fronted (but had thick bezels)
If a glass covered screen improves picture quality why do so few manufactures use them?
First off, id say that making that type of judgement after looking at only one set of monitors may not be the best way to draw any conclusions.
Putting that aside, my guess is that the glass adds additional cost and is not beneficial enough to justify the increase in price. You stated that the HP unit was cheaper, but refer back to my first paragraph, either one of those screen could have represented results that differ from average.
Are you sure it was glass or was it just a glossy screen. High gloss monitors reflect glare off the screen and may not be suitable in some areas. Thats may be a major benefit to LCD technology over a plasma. So it really depends on the buyer and what there needs are. However many people claim that LCDs may look a bit flat over plasma TVs, so I guess to obtain the best of both worlds, no image burn + vibrant colors, High Gloss LCDs may be a good way to go. Panasonic came out with a nonglare plasma but again, I think it looks flat compared to other plasmas.
There were about 20 monitors on display and the glass fronted one seemed to be much sharper, making the others seem dull. I queried this with an assistant and he said that it was the glass that made the difference. I’ve googled and the only one I can find is a n “AG Neovo” a brand which I’ve never heard of. I presumed in this competitive field that there was good reason for other brands to avoid using glass and it intrigued me.
was it actually a glass covered lcd?? or an lcd with a crystalbrite or other similar panel in it?
the crystalbrite/comparible lcd's generally have a better contrast ratio (blacks look blacker, whites look whiter, ect) but also suffer from glare from hell (in my experience).
The matte displays (less glossy look) have much less glare, and a bit less contrast, maybe even a little less overall brightness.
Also, them HP's may have been cheaper, but they probably had lesser performance in many area's. the human eye is very subjective, and the only real test of pic quality is the electronic measuring equipment that pretty much only labs or manuf/repair facilities have. With that equipment, they can measure actual color accuracy, brightness, and even in some cases sharpness of the display.
I’m sure your right on the features/performance but it really stood out as being clearer/sharper; it was part of a complete H.P. system in PC World. Your right of course that it’s down to individual preference, also perhaps the lighting? The glass was fixed to the front, covering the screen.
I’m feeling a bit of a prat now but the difference for me was distinct. I thought there must be a disadvantage, perhaps glare or reflection in real world use.
Yes just checked. Our supplier (In Australia) has 2 Models from ASUS that have glass front Monitors. In the blurb they say it's "PROTECTIVE GLASS" so I am guessing its used more for protection rather than picture quality.
Yeah the glass isn't so important as the finish or filters they may add to it.
Personally I would prefer a matte panel but with LED backlight, as it offers the best of both worlds with increased colours but not the annoying reflections and oversaturation of the Glossy finishes. The only problem being that they are hard to find in larger sizes and usually noticeably more expensive.
If you are comaring the same panels and don't have lighting issues (open windows with som sunlight at the worst) then the Glossy Glass will tend to look richer.
i've seen what he's talking about... they're frigging ugly looking because they blur the image, and the reason it looks "sharper" is because of the reflection. it looks brighter because a portion of the light bounces back off of the glass and hits the front of the lcd panel. it's a trick to add brightness and color without making a more expensive lcd panel. and please do try and THINK a little... it makes perfect sense... ever seen an infinity mirror? if you have not, go down the aisle in the toy store that's made just for girls... one is a mirror and one is a half a mirror... lets only a portion of the light pass, along with a few dim lights, makes it look like the mirror goes on forever. anyway, problem solved, don't buy the hp screen if you have epilepsy or have an affinity for a slight blur or even motion sickness. or just happen to sit at a computer for extended periods of time, it'll give you a headache.
The glossy coatings take advantage of an optical trick to "improve" contrast ratios and make colors look more vibrant. The contrast and color aren't really any better, but your brain is fooled into thinking they are. If you don't mind the reflections or being deceived then a glossy monitor may be for you.
thank you for reiterating asgallant. Look at the monitor from all angles. you'll see the slight blur if you're paying attention. may be easier with a still image. anyway, you get the idea. front lighted monitors would be great on the eyes, but then we'd all be using projectors. :-p