16.2m colour TFT's - AVIOD!!

[Hobart Paving]

16.2m colour LCDs look ****e.

So why are you buying a Viewsonic with 16.2m colours???

All you've done is plagarise a legitimate article, having not properly understood what's involved and as a consequence, ended up making a load of misleading, inaccurate, irrational, and generalsed statements based on a hotchpotch of confused ideas.

Try being original for a change and stop trying to impress. It's clear from your original post and subsequent comments that you're trying to puff yourself up about a subject which you don't properly understand and don't know how to put into context.

[SilentDeath]

I was assured by viewsonics UK sales manager that it was 16.7m colours.

I know it is definatly based on TN tech.. but that doesnt mean its definatly 16.2m. Please point me to somewhere proving that it is 16.2m colours- or a viewsonic spec sayign it is.

As I said, I didnt read that link until today - however I was right about 16.2m colour displays even if I did mis-identify the viewsonic. You were however wrong, as the artifacts I was talking about was not the result of a faulty monitor, but that of the tech its based on.

And I still have the opinion that theres no point in paying extra for DVI for 16.2m colour monitors.

[Taz]

Viewsonic don't state the number of colours for any of their monitors on their site. I've downloaded the product brochures for several monitors off their site and none specified colours. The nearest you'll get is the phrase '16 million colours'.

I also think that the VX912 is 16.2 million colours. You should try and get a written statement via e-mail from their UK sales manager to state it is 16.78 million colours to protect yourself.

[Defiant]

Im sorry Silent Death I have used 16.2mil Panels before with no problems, buy the sound of you first post its a faulty screen. Im not going to go into the setting up the panel as factory defaults should give you a good enough picture if you GFX card is se-up correctly(Not always the case).
1. Anyway I have always found Sony screens to give good colour pallets when using them.
2. The amount of dead pixels only says to me that this screen has missed QC or its been badly damaged in transit.
3. Sony models were never the 'Gamers' TFT monitor.
4. The human eye is not capable of discerning between 16.2 and 16.7mil shades of colour. If I remember correct (Correct me if wrong) the human eye cant tell the difference after 250,000+ shades of colour.
5. From all reviews and chats with others I believe ALL TFTs dither to pass 250,00 colour pallet.
6. CHILL M8! we are talking about, not trying to have world war 3 over the subject.

**Feel free to correct me with if you want, Proof would be helpful for all in this thread**

[SilentDeath]

Right, firstly I admit when posting I was a *bit* pissed off and frustrated with scan.. but alll is good now, as lowestonweb could not have given better service (although scan havent refunded me yet )

Also please note I was*always* so far comparing these tft's to CRT's when talking about colour depth. Then also note, that my sony ps one 5" TFT, although it does have issues, it is capable of full colour depth and has no artifacts.

There is no and never were any problems with my set up.

My viewsonic also shows slight artifacting similar to the sony, but it is nowhere near as bad - also note that both are 12ms displays, and this also ghosts MUCH less. If you want, I will get some pics to clearly show. Ahat im talking about, which should then allow you to notice it on yoursas stated above - and explained in the x-bit labs article, this is compleatly normal for 16.2m/262k colour TFT's.
AFAIK this is not present on 16.7m colour TFT's but I havent got one to look at atm, and Ive never really used them enoughbefore to notice it just like that.

but as I said, its there and Im VERY suprised that noone has noticed it. I pointed it out on a m8's 16.2m tft when I was over there earlyer and it was the first time he noticed aswell.
"1. Anyway I have always found Sony screens to give good colour pallets when using them."

Our opinions differ. Maybe on there 16.7m colour TFTs. In the X-bit labs article, it says that different makes do the dithering a different way,viewsonic probably has a better method on 16.2m displays.

Also the general screen is better on the viewsonic. The sony had a mirror like glass finnish, much like that of a CRT - and it reflected everything - which is one of my hates of monitors. My VX912 has a matt? finnish which doesnt noticable reflect when its on.

My opinion is that sony's are designed to look good, on the outside as it helps them sell, but the important things are often neglected.

"3. Sony models were never the 'Gamers' TFT monitor."

I class anything rated at 12ms as a gamers TFT.

4. Erm, yes it is. Thats like saying the eye can only notice 30-40 fps, which is also compleatly and utterly wrong, but if you want me to explain, I dont mind

Overall I would highly recommend this monitor, however I would, as a second chioce recommend a 16.7m colour 25ms IPS(I think thats the name?) type tft for the better picture quality - again read the x-bit article for explaination.

[davidstone28]

I class anything rated at 12ms as a gamers TFT.

This is like pulling teeth.

12ms isn't 12ms.

It's the same type of assumption making that you're using regarding many of the other points you're tried to make.

[Apex]

and your point ?

look m8 i happen to agree with him, the 16.2m colour range tfts i have seen have been garbage.

It has been shown on another forum wheen the vx910/vx915 first came out it was compared to a known 16.2m colour range tft and yuo could tell the difference.

The fact is that 16.2m colour range tfts are in my eyes substandard and misleading.

[davidstone28]

No one's diagreeing that given two monitors identical in every way, save that one has 16.7m colours and the other has 16.2m dithered colours, the 16.7m colour monitor in theory at least should look better than the 16.2m one.

But the methodology used by SilentDeath and the evidence relied upon by him to make such sweeping statements is flawed beyond belief. As I have tried to suggest already, there are many other factors which affect colour reproduction - not just the colour pallette of the monitor. The sample size is also far too small to draw any valid conclusions. Far too many people too readily accept the 'number' factor as being a decisive criterion as to quality or speed, whether its megahertz, megapixals or dare I say, millions of colours. Until there has been a reasoned analysis and discussions of all other relevant factors, the statements simply have proven basis. If you prouduced a business or technical report with using that type of testing methodology and reasoning, you'd be laughed out of town.

[Apex]

Funny...i could have swore thats how most comercial benchmarks are.

agree to disagree.

[azrael1]

Yep Silent does like to rant