4 ms·

The quality of computer monitors is appalling - after buying and returning several monitors because of quality issues, I briefly considered doing this system-wi

by ifqwz 4y ago

The quality of computer monitors is appalling - after buying and returning several monitors because of quality issues, I briefly considered doing this system-wide to fix colour uniformity problems. Eventually I chose to keep my old monitor instead. It has uniformity problems as well but it doesn't cost me $1000 extra to keep. But it's a damn shame that you can't throw enough money at manufacturers to make them make monitors without glaring QA problems. No matter how much you spend they sell you shit.

nottorp 4y ago
You talking about mainstream "gaming" monitors? I'm just a programmer and gave up on those long ago. Getting entry level monitors targeted at graphic designers now. Namely Asus ProArt and I think Dell has similar stuff? They don't have 240 Hz and sub 0.01 ms response times though, so if you're buying your hardware based on bigger numbers in specs they won't do. They're probably not that great for actual designers either, but they're good enough for me.
- deergomoo 4y ago
  > Asus ProArt I’m using one of these and I’m very happy with it. Reasonable price, 75Hz, supports USB-PD + has its own USB ports so I can one-cable it with my work laptop. Most importantly they come factory calibrated. I consider reasonable colour reproduction important even though I only use it for programming. I stare at this thing for 8 hours a day, it needs to look good. In fairness I also have a 165Hz LG UltraGear gaming monitor, and the image quality is almost as good. My only complaint is the black levels and grey uniformity suck, but for someone who wants performance and quality it’s a decent option.
  - nottorp 4y ago
    > I consider reasonable colour reproduction important When I got my first I wasted 2 hours rewatching a movie I had seen recently. Just because i didn't know it can look that good on a monitor :)
- kevingadd 4y ago
  The first graphic design monitor I bought from Benq had a busted image processor so that you couldn't turn off the sharpening - only set it to -5% (blurry) or +5%. Eventually I complained enough that they sent me a different monitor that didn't have the problem. I've had bad experiences with some of Dell's pro-grade monitors too. It feels like modern displays are so complex firmware and hardware wise that it's just very hard to find one that isn't defective in some way. This replacement Benq works for basic uses but its freesync is broken and it's already developed burn-in around the edges after about 1.5 years.
  - nottorp 4y ago
    Funny, when I bought my first designer-ish monitor I threw a (gaming) Benq into the trash.
BoorishBears 4y ago
My XDR has been pretty flawless, and on the less exorbitantly priced end, I've had good experiences with a few business oriented IPS models (most recently the Samsung UR55). My main gripe is gaming monitors seem to be consistently the worst panels they can get their hands on. It seems like they realize gamers will put up with a lot of garbage in exchange for raw "power" and take full advantage of the fact. I'm 99% sure that's why we saw brands like Wasabi Mango (who used to take B grade panels and sell them on the cheap) disappeared... the manufacturers just started shipping them as gaming models.
- autoexec 4y ago
  If you fill your entire screen with nothing but a single solid color (try #FF6400) does it show up correctly? That is, without any gradient or areas of the screen where the color appears darker or lighter (especially around the edges or in the corners?). I've yet to find a modern monitor that doesn't have a problem with that basic test, which is pretty disappointing considering accurately representing a single color should be easy and I've had several CRTs that could do it.
  - ifqwz 4y ago
    Most people will tell you that their monitor is flawless, then you do simple tests like that one and the monitor shows that it has severe issues and they respond "uh I never noticed, well I don't care". Which is precisely why manufacturers can get away with the shit that they sell.
    - BoorishBears 4y ago
      I've owned pretty much every "notable" monitor in the formats I care about in the last few years, I'm sure I'm pickier than you. The fact is you can pay for a good enough monitor to truly be flawless, it just costs more than people are envisioning. For example, my late revision 5K Ultrafine nearly as flawless as the XDR. I didn't list it because people who don't know better latch onto the wifi teething issues the first revisions had, but the panel is approaching the limit of little backlight bleed as the technology allows (and the limits are not as poor as people are making out). - Honestly I've seen the opposite though, people who don't realize that any piece of screen large enough, photographed with exposure cranked way below normal will show _some_ sort of pattern and confuse _that_ with "terrible backlight bleed". But that's the panel equivalent of people who only watch Star Wars space sequences with brightness cranked to 11 in a pitch black room to judge HDR bloom...

by ifqwz 4y ago

nottorp 4y ago

You talking about mainstream "gaming" monitors? I'm just a programmer and gave up on those long ago. Getting entry level monitors targeted at graphic designers now. Namely Asus ProArt and I think Dell has similar stuff? They don't have 240 Hz and sub 0.01 ms response times though, so if you're buying your hardware based on bigger numbers in specs they won't do. They're probably not that great for actual designers either, but they're good enough for me.

deergomoo 4y ago
> Asus ProArt I’m using one of these and I’m very happy with it. Reasonable price, 75Hz, supports USB-PD + has its own USB ports so I can one-cable it with my work laptop. Most importantly they come factory calibrated. I consider reasonable colour reproduction important even though I only use it for programming. I stare at this thing for 8 hours a day, it needs to look good. In fairness I also have a 165Hz LG UltraGear gaming monitor, and the image quality is almost as good. My only complaint is the black levels and grey uniformity suck, but for someone who wants performance and quality it’s a decent option.
- nottorp 4y ago
  > I consider reasonable colour reproduction important When I got my first I wasted 2 hours rewatching a movie I had seen recently. Just because i didn't know it can look that good on a monitor :)
kevingadd 4y ago
The first graphic design monitor I bought from Benq had a busted image processor so that you couldn't turn off the sharpening - only set it to -5% (blurry) or +5%. Eventually I complained enough that they sent me a different monitor that didn't have the problem. I've had bad experiences with some of Dell's pro-grade monitors too. It feels like modern displays are so complex firmware and hardware wise that it's just very hard to find one that isn't defective in some way. This replacement Benq works for basic uses but its freesync is broken and it's already developed burn-in around the edges after about 1.5 years.
- nottorp 4y ago
  Funny, when I bought my first designer-ish monitor I threw a (gaming) Benq into the trash.

BoorishBears 4y ago

My XDR has been pretty flawless, and on the less exorbitantly priced end, I've had good experiences with a few business oriented IPS models (most recently the Samsung UR55). My main gripe is gaming monitors seem to be consistently the worst panels they can get their hands on. It seems like they realize gamers will put up with a lot of garbage in exchange for raw "power" and take full advantage of the fact. I'm 99% sure that's why we saw brands like Wasabi Mango (who used to take B grade panels and sell them on the cheap) disappeared... the manufacturers just started shipping them as gaming models.

autoexec 4y ago
If you fill your entire screen with nothing but a single solid color (try #FF6400) does it show up correctly? That is, without any gradient or areas of the screen where the color appears darker or lighter (especially around the edges or in the corners?). I've yet to find a modern monitor that doesn't have a problem with that basic test, which is pretty disappointing considering accurately representing a single color should be easy and I've had several CRTs that could do it.
- ifqwz 4y ago
  Most people will tell you that their monitor is flawless, then you do simple tests like that one and the monitor shows that it has severe issues and they respond "uh I never noticed, well I don't care". Which is precisely why manufacturers can get away with the shit that they sell.
  - BoorishBears 4y ago
    I've owned pretty much every "notable" monitor in the formats I care about in the last few years, I'm sure I'm pickier than you. The fact is you can pay for a good enough monitor to truly be flawless, it just costs more than people are envisioning. For example, my late revision 5K Ultrafine nearly as flawless as the XDR. I didn't list it because people who don't know better latch onto the wifi teething issues the first revisions had, but the panel is approaching the limit of little backlight bleed as the technology allows (and the limits are not as poor as people are making out). - Honestly I've seen the opposite though, people who don't realize that any piece of screen large enough, photographed with exposure cranked way below normal will show _some_ sort of pattern and confuse _that_ with "terrible backlight bleed". But that's the panel equivalent of people who only watch Star Wars space sequences with brightness cranked to 11 in a pitch black room to judge HDR bloom...