@DragonQ:
But isn't that 24WMGX3 a 60Hz 24" AMVA with a retail price of 800€+ (£700)? When corrected for inflation, that would make about 1000€ (£850) today. (using http://inflation.stephenmorley.org/ and http://x-rates.com/)
For those more interested, here are reviews of the 24WMGX3:
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/nec_24wmgx3.htm
http://www.prad.de/en/monitore/review/2009/review-nec-24wmgx3.html
Compared to all the bells and whistles of the Samsung C34F791WQU, for example, we can see just how rapidly we've moved in 8 years. So can we realistically expect the same quality control with the C34F791WQU, let alone some low-budget tier monitors?
Then again, for comparison my Acer XZ321Q from 2016 (500€/£430), using the Black Screen -test of https://www.yofla.com/black-screen/, inside the spoiler:
Dislaimer:
In the middle of the night without lights -shot, the light shines through slightly more than what the image shows, probably a cause of camera's auto-ISO setting adjusting the base luminance for the white text, cursor and power button LED. So a full black screen might have been better for comparison. But when there is something on the screen, it prevents (potentially hidden) dynamic backlight etc. features from being enabled, which I find more beneficial. Also, the camera would have still made the same adjustment because of the power button LED (which is even more profound in the 24WMGX3's sample shot, btw).
On the other hand, the normal lighting shot is exaggerating the effect somewhat, so the actual result would be somewhere between them. Anyway, the XZ321Q's screen is indeed very dark. And in all honesty, under normal lighting conditions even reflections are more noticeable, and we're talking about an anti-glare screen!
Nevertheless, I'm guessing my unit being as good as it is might have something to do with the fact that I bought it as soon as it was available in my country. So the manufacturers might be giving extra care for the first units, to improve the market's first impression.
That doesn't look bad at all! So, what do we have as improvements?
Bigger size, higher refresh rate, faster response time, lower input lag, lower power consumption (and less heat), thinner bezels and chassis, lighter weight (and we're talking about 24"-vs-32" here!!), flicker-free, curved screen, FreeSync, lower price (even without inflation).
Although, from what I've heard, Acer's customer support is awful nowadays. So I'd forgive some price difference for NEC, in that regard.
Related to this:
From what I've understood, most of the current cheap mass-marketed IPS screens were/are based on the eIPS or AH-IPS evolutions, which improved upon the response times and manufacturing costs, but sacrificed on other areas (light leakage, IPS glow?). But customers (especially gamers) showed that they'd indeed rather buy a faster £300 eIPS/AH-IPS than a slower £600 H-IPS/P-IPS (IIRC the types). Then there's AHVA, which isn't apparently a direct successor to any of the above, but is still regarded as IPS (even though it has -VA on its name). But pricing follows more closely the budget class eIPS and AH-IPS, with the same focus on improving response times, so I'm guessing the sacrifices might be on the same scale?
Another factor might be the backlighting system, in itself. In 2008 (and also in case of 24WMGX3), the CCFL backlight was still common. This type is directly at the back of the panel in multiple light strips, whereas the currently ubiquitous edge-lit LED solution is, like the name suggests, shining the light from the edge(s). As such, it's harder to maintain a consistent result.
But isn't that 24WMGX3 a 60Hz 24" AMVA with a retail price of 800€+ (£700)? When corrected for inflation, that would make about 1000€ (£850) today. (using http://inflation.stephenmorley.org/ and http://x-rates.com/)
For those more interested, here are reviews of the 24WMGX3:
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/nec_24wmgx3.htm
http://www.prad.de/en/monitore/review/2009/review-nec-24wmgx3.html
Compared to all the bells and whistles of the Samsung C34F791WQU, for example, we can see just how rapidly we've moved in 8 years. So can we realistically expect the same quality control with the C34F791WQU, let alone some low-budget tier monitors?
Then again, for comparison my Acer XZ321Q from 2016 (500€/£430), using the Black Screen -test of https://www.yofla.com/black-screen/, inside the spoiler:
Dislaimer:
In the middle of the night without lights -shot, the light shines through slightly more than what the image shows, probably a cause of camera's auto-ISO setting adjusting the base luminance for the white text, cursor and power button LED. So a full black screen might have been better for comparison. But when there is something on the screen, it prevents (potentially hidden) dynamic backlight etc. features from being enabled, which I find more beneficial. Also, the camera would have still made the same adjustment because of the power button LED (which is even more profound in the 24WMGX3's sample shot, btw).
On the other hand, the normal lighting shot is exaggerating the effect somewhat, so the actual result would be somewhere between them. Anyway, the XZ321Q's screen is indeed very dark. And in all honesty, under normal lighting conditions even reflections are more noticeable, and we're talking about an anti-glare screen!
Nevertheless, I'm guessing my unit being as good as it is might have something to do with the fact that I bought it as soon as it was available in my country. So the manufacturers might be giving extra care for the first units, to improve the market's first impression.
Bigger size, higher refresh rate, faster response time, lower input lag, lower power consumption (and less heat), thinner bezels and chassis, lighter weight (and we're talking about 24"-vs-32" here!!), flicker-free, curved screen, FreeSync, lower price (even without inflation).
Although, from what I've heard, Acer's customer support is awful nowadays. So I'd forgive some price difference for NEC, in that regard.
Related to this:
From what I've understood, most of the current cheap mass-marketed IPS screens were/are based on the eIPS or AH-IPS evolutions, which improved upon the response times and manufacturing costs, but sacrificed on other areas (light leakage, IPS glow?). But customers (especially gamers) showed that they'd indeed rather buy a faster £300 eIPS/AH-IPS than a slower £600 H-IPS/P-IPS (IIRC the types). Then there's AHVA, which isn't apparently a direct successor to any of the above, but is still regarded as IPS (even though it has -VA on its name). But pricing follows more closely the budget class eIPS and AH-IPS, with the same focus on improving response times, so I'm guessing the sacrifices might be on the same scale?
Another factor might be the backlighting system, in itself. In 2008 (and also in case of 24WMGX3), the CCFL backlight was still common. This type is directly at the back of the panel in multiple light strips, whereas the currently ubiquitous edge-lit LED solution is, like the name suggests, shining the light from the edge(s). As such, it's harder to maintain a consistent result.
. So I returned to the "rainforest", 4th screen luckily has very slight BLB, that you only notice on crazy brightness (ie >70) which I don't use, this has one semi dark pixel which you can only see if few inches away from screen and viewing area directly face on, which I don't as it's far right lower corner section about 5cm up and 2cm in.
.
