Thanks

[Thor]

Hi everybody,

I would like to say thanks to "Benoît Dupont" for his article about ViewSonic LCD.
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/display/20050602/index.html

I feel less idiot after read his article.
And I find pity they are not standard for all creation of technologies and create by independant society and that companies are obligated to follow them.

Like latency 8ms, 4ms is a good example.
Companies play with number. Like for hard drive too. When they say 100 GB, GB for them is 1 billion but in reality it must be 2^20 (or 1024 x 1024). Cause it's etablish that in computer world we are in base 2. It's a standard. But they are any law to obligated companies to follow them.

Anyway. At least they are Tom's Hardware and their excellent team.
Thanks to you Benoît again and all team of Tom's.

You make my day very happy.

Hope you will exist forever and you will continue your excellent work and stay objective.

Have a nice day !

 

[Chuck_Hsiao]

I second that. With all the hoopla surrounding the Viewsonic 4 ms monitor, I thought it meant they were really making a big advance. It turns out that a claimed 4 ms monitor can really take as long as 31 ms (in the example shown), and that Viewsonic conveniently forgot an elementary rule of control dynamics (staying within 10% of the target value is what counts, not zooming past it in order to reach it as quickly as possible) in order to market a better spec. Sigh.

Well I posted a rant about it on the Anandtech forums. You can read about it here:

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=31&threadid=1605560&enterthread=y

Chuck Hsiao
Formerly of Amptron

 

[Spacecomber]

Rather than start another thread, I'd like to add my comments about the recent review of the VX924 here. I also very much appreciate the effort that you've put into giving us some real data for evaluating the response time of this monitor. Hopefully, the ISO will move toward requiring all LCD makers to publish a response time graph like the one's that you and Xbit Labs are making available in their reviews.

Following the same kind of thinking, I'd like to suggest that Tom's also have a standardized way of looking at viewing angles and publish their findings on this, as well. This is another specification that has been interpreted differently by different manufacturers (for example, you'll notice that the numbers that the panel manufacturers list for the panel are often much lower than the numbers that are given by the maker of the final, LCD monitor product).

If you can identify the technology being used in a particular LCD (ie, TN, MVA, PVA, IPS), it would be helpful to say a little about how a particular LCD model does in the areas that are typically areas of weakness for that kind of panel.

For example, assuming the VX924 uses a MVA panel (I have no idea what kind of panel it uses, this is just an example), it would be interesting to know how noticable the slight shift in hues are when going from looking at the monitor straight-on to viewing it at a slight angle. The othe area of weakness for VA panels has always been grey to grey response times, but that of course is the main focus of the review of this monitor.

For TN panels, I'd like to have the issue of dithering to get a larger spectrum of colors addressed. How noticable is banding, for example, with different color samples? Also, these panels have always had the poorest viewing angles (and thus the fudging of their numbers). If you find yourself moving around in your chair, are you bothered by losing the image quality, as a result?

For IPS panesls, how well do they create a true black?

Those are just some things that I would be interested in learning more about. Keep up the good work, I think Tom's is leading the way in providing the kind of hardware reviews of LCD monitors that can have an impact on the industry for the benefit of the consumer.

Space