LCD viewing angles... Does it matter? (if they suck?)

Post by **Tamlin** » 22 Jun 2006, 12:55

Standard measurment for viewing angles is that contrast is less then 10. Most people would be annoyed greatly already I think when contrast is already less then 50 and some would go mad if the contrast would change slightly.

At WSGF, we have learned to check our screens for anything that can ruin our viewing experience. Dead pixels, ghosting, tearing, motion blur and backlight bleed ranges highest. Screens are getting bigger and bigger, and faults are even easier to spot the larger they get.

The larger the screen, the more important viewing angles are? Or is that wrong?
What is worse? Motion blur once in a while or image changing every time you change viewing angle?

Should the industry change their standard for viewing angles at least to contrast less then 50, or doesn't it matter?

Here are some examples of viewing angle from Behardware, which was early out shedding light about viewing angles:

Nec 20WGXÃ‚Â²(*IPS)

ViewSonic VX922(TN)

Belinea 10 20 35W(*VA)

According to specs, the VA's (especially the PVA) should have the best viewing angles. This is because of the standard 10

Viewing angles are unchanged. Those of the IPS are wider in all directions. The next closest is the TN that are better than VAs from the side. Their vertical viewing angles are very reduced, however, and especially from below as they immediately turn black.

Behardware.com

cyrana · Post by **cyrana** » 22 Jun 2006, 15:59

It's not really bothered me too much (but I've only owned IPS panels). I guess even with those they get weird if you move too far off center, but nothing like the other panel types I've seen.

Post by **Tamlin** » 22 Jun 2006, 19:43

Worst case I have been seeing is when I sat infront of my stepfathers laptop. If you have tried the sniper rifle in COD2, you'll understand how I had to sit:
It was like I had to move my head to "snipe" the text and when I had found it, it was almost like I had to hold my breath (as in COD2) in order to hold position... :P Terrible! I would think that major ghosting on the screen would have been a more pleasant experience then that! One of the few times it has been painful to surf WSGF ;) LOL!

Its interesting to see what people experience the viewing angle as. The industry standard gives manufacturers to boost high numbers of viewing angle without any practical meaning for the end users.

What would be an acceptable drop in PQ regarding viewing angles?

Flawless up to X degrees?
Flawless up to x degrees and 10 % reduction after that?
Going the other way, 10>contrast, only tells us at what degree the image starts improving... :P hehehe

Post by **Gilly** » 22 Jun 2006, 20:22

the pixels should all be fishbowl.... then it would be better viewing angles, but no doubt that is impossible. I must say, my head is stationary in CS matches, but even this AS-IPS can be improved... :) (viewing angles wise)

i think Sharp capitalised on the shitty viewing angles by having 2 pictures on one screen on a special lcd

Post by **Tamlin** » 06 Jul 2006, 15:20

the pixels should all be fishbowl.... then it would be better viewing angles, but no doubt that is impossible. I must say, my head is stationary in CS matches, but even this AS-IPS can be improved... :) (viewing angles wise)

i think Sharp capitalised on the shitty viewing angles by having 2 pictures on one screen on a special lcd

Fishbowl pixels... Lol! :D

Hinotori · Post by **Hinotori** » 06 Jul 2006, 19:56

For my use and the current screen size, it doesn't matter....

I use a 19" Wide LCD monitor, no need to set it to portrait, size is good enough for the small space of my home office where I have my PC and my XBOX 360 connected to it. No need to have acceptable viewing angles when viewing from a low point of view, all I have there are some chairs. The result of that TFT LCD, that as far as I understood, has the worst viewing angles of all LCD technologies, is excelente for one person, even if moving the head. Very good for two persons. More than that, it is not good.

Now, if I were thinking of a TV, where the TV is usually placed above me and it needs to have good viewing angles from there, and that people across the room want to watch it too, TFT is unacceptable.

Regarding viewing angles, I think that you must consider your use and what you need, then you know what to look for.

But there are things that are as important, if not more important, like if you use the screen primarly for games (and what kind of games), movies, photo.... People just keep looking into contrast ratio and viewing angles, and this can lead to disappointments.

Post by **Tamlin** » 06 Jul 2006, 23:15

For my use and the current screen size, it doesn't matter....

I use a 19" Wide LCD monitor, no need to set it to portrait, size is good enough for the small space of my home office where I have my PC and my XBOX 360 connected to it. No need to have acceptable viewing angles when viewing from a low point of view, all I have there are some chairs. The result of that TFT LCD, that as far as I understood, has the worst viewing angles of all LCD technologies, is excelente for one person, even if moving the head. Very good for two persons. More than that, it is not good.

You have a TN panel, worst on specs, but not in real life. As you can see from the pictures and also the tekst, the viewing angles are pretty descent/good from the sides(image 2) :D

Now, if I were thinking of a TV, where the TV is usually placed above me and it needs to have good viewing angles from there, and that people across the room want to watch it too, TFT is unacceptable.

I assume with TFT, you mean TN. Yes, I can see the problem if the screen/tv was above head (like on some football pubs) :)

Regarding viewing angles, I think that you must consider your use and what you need, then you know what to look for.

But there are things that are as important, if not more important, like if you use the screen primarly for games (and what kind of games), movies, photo.... People just keep looking into contrast ratio and viewing angles, and this can lead to disappointments.

I agree. There are different people with different needs and its important to look for what covers your needs. BUT, shouldn't the spesifications reflect the actual point where image degrades, instead of the point where contrast is less then 10?

If you run a bar, wouldn't you want to know how the viewing angle would be for the audience? Or if you do sensitive color work, wouldn't you want to know if the image shifts after a certain angle (since you spent time and money to get a hardware calibrator so that your screen would represent colors, brightness and contrast the best it can)?

Should the industry change their standards, or is it enough for you to know that contrast is less then 10 on a certain degree? :)
Your screen has a viewing angle listed as (150/135) (compareble with the vx922 as seen above) and in the example the Belinea 10 20 35W has (178/178). If you look at the pictures above, do you feel that the specs reflect what you see on the pictures?

Microtia · Post by **Microtia** » 06 Jul 2006, 23:35

To me, viewing angles mean nothing. I'm never NOT looking straight on at my monitor, so they can say the viewing angle is ∞ for all I care. I can see where it would be a problem for some people, but it just isn't for me.

Post by **Tamlin** » 07 Jul 2006, 00:48

To me, viewing angles mean nothing. I'm never NOT looking straight on at my monitor, so they can say the viewing angle is ∞ for all I care. I can see where it would be a problem for some people, but it just isn't for me.

Say a friend of yours were asking to get a screen with good viewing angles (maybe he/she changes postion a lot for comfort sake, or gets friends over to play games on same screen, or maybe she/he gets headackes of constant image changes when she/he moves head... we have users who have this problem), wouldn't you like to have more accurate information available then?

darklight_tr · Post by **darklight_tr** » 07 Jul 2006, 04:25

I think that the viewing angle debate is overrated. I shift position all the time when using my computer, but my LCD has never bothered me in this regard.

As for friends trying to watch me play a game....screw 'em. :wink:

Morabu · Post by **Morabu** » 07 Jul 2006, 07:55

i never look at my computere monitor from anywhere except from head-on
so...i could care less about viewing angles

but.......if we talk about television lcd's then i would highly need great viewing angles, as i sit in a variety of positions while my t.v. stays in a fixed position

Post by **skipclarke** » 08 Jul 2006, 03:47

Not a huge issue to me, but by this time I think most LCD's should have good viewing angles all around. Just something that should be shored up and tidy eh? :wink:

Post by **Tamlin** » 08 Jul 2006, 12:00

Not a huge issue to me, but by this time I think most LCD's should have good viewing angles all around. Just something that should be shored up and tidy eh? :wink:

So it seems on paper, but not in real life. Manufacturers boost about their "wide viewing angles" and use it as a selling point. On the larger monitors, viewing angles become more crucial, since many have them too close and have to move head when watching it. As it is a selling point for manufacturers and retailers, so is it also a "returning point" for users.

I sold the 2405 because it was excessively bright even with the backlight on minimum.

And it had terrible viewing angles. Don't believe the number quoted in the specs (178 degrees). If you move your head 2 inches, dark tones (not black though) wash out.

link
A TN panel with 150/135 in viewing angles would actually be an improvment for him then the 178/178 he bought. Don't you agree?

Specs should be a tool for users in any case. As you can see, many don't care about the specs for monitors (and more care in this poll). Those who don't care about specs for monitors, still care about specs for TV and they use the same model for reporting viewing angles (contrast less then 10).
When the tool becomes misleading as shown above, whats the point then with it unless they change it?

Post by **skipclarke** » 08 Jul 2006, 13:35

I don't have any issue with my present screen (L2335).

I think viewing angles comes into play very seriously when directed towards TV screens - then it becomes a ALMOST the most important issue.

whoster69 · Post by **whoster69** » 08 Jul 2006, 17:26

While viewing angle is an important issue, I'm more concerned with things like ghosting, dead pixel policy (it should be zero or you get a new replacement free of any charges), and support.

Post by **Tamlin** » 20 Jul 2006, 01:13

From Alexpronko at [H]ardforums describing viewing angle issues(check the link for photo's of it):

I thought that I was being paranoid disqualifying it based on the "color wash", since everybody here seems to think that it's OK to have it (like on dell 2405). So with open mind I gave it another shot and have to say that it is unacceptable for me and I really don'tunderstand how can it not bother other people with S-PVA matrices ?! I played far cry, than watched DVD and you can clearly see loosing details when looking straight on, than details reappear when looking at slight angle but the colors also wash out. To make things worse there is this hard to describe glittering effect when looking at any gray scale colors. Even playing games it looks unnatural, anything grayish-black is glittering , like there is a flash light behind the screen there.

link

I respect different opinions, but I must agree with Alexpronko. I can't understand why bad viewing angles doesn't bother some people. And, when people doesn't cry out, manufacturers doesn't prioritise getting this fixed either.
This I haven't tested yet, but maybe someone can? :) If you duplicate a detailed image into three, one on each side and one in the middle. Then you put it on a big *va based panel (24"+). They say that the image in the middle will be less detailed then the images on the side, and the images on the side will have a slightly washout. This is from looking at the screen straight on.

Considering those who screem bloody murder when there is one stuck pixel on a screen with a total of 2.304.000, one should think that they would want descent viewing angles as well and want manufacturers to do something about it.... :P

Wiz33 · Post by **Wiz33** » 20 Jul 2006, 01:24

I don't really care about viewing angle on samller PC monitors (24" or under) as I'm the only one viewing it so as long as it looks fine from where I usually sit. That's perfectly fine with me.

Now for Big Screen LCD like my 37" and 42". It becomes more important as they are view by family member together but as long as it covers the 45 degree left and right well. then it's not a problem either as there's where the chairs ae at.

Blinky · Post by **Blinky** » 20 Jul 2006, 01:41

From Alexpronko at [H]ardforums describing viewing angle issues(check the link for photo's of it):

I thought that I was being paranoid disqualifying it based on the "color wash", since everybody here seems to think that it's OK to have it (like on dell 2405). So with open mind I gave it another shot and have to say that it is unacceptable for me and I really don'tunderstand how can it not bother other people with S-PVA matrices ?! I played far cry, than watched DVD and you can clearly see loosing details when looking straight on, than details reappear when looking at slight angle but the colors also wash out. To make things worse there is this hard to describe glittering effect when looking at any gray scale colors. Even playing games it looks unnatural, anything grayish-black is glittering , like there is a flash light behind the screen there.
link

I respect different opinions, but I must agree with Alexpronko.

I feel the same way, Tamlin. I read all 55 pages in that thread, and some people were taking shots at Alexpronko, sort of making fun of him "-what are you doing that you keep moving your head," etc.

Here's the thing about PVA and color wash (I keep calling it "screen wash" - gotta get my new terminology straight!) You don't have to move your head to see it. With my 21-inch Gateway, I could see the image shifting in tone and detail without moving my head an inch. Something in the center of the screen - a photo on a web page, a wall in a FPS, etc - would have a certain black level to it, and when I moved the photo to the side of my screen, or just walked around in the FPS, I could see it changing, getting lighter, more detailed and slightly washed out.

Once I noticed this, I couldn't stop noticing it.

But I think we should keep two things seperate - viewing angle is not always the same as color wash. What I want from a monitor is an even image across the screen whenI'm looking straight at it. I don't care what it looks like if I stand up, or lie on the floor, because I'm never going to use my monitor standing up or lying on the floor. Or use it by sitting off to the side, for that matter. I'm going to sit in my chair and face my monitor, and if it looks good like that, then hey - I'm happy.

Post by **Tamlin** » 24 Jul 2006, 13:29

I agree :) There are several things that can cause color wash: Bad calibration, bad viewing angles, uneven backlights and so on.

Still, viewing angles affect picture a great deal and people should get specs that reflect this. Here is another quote from behardware:

Beyond 100Ã‚Â°, however, color intensity decreases faster. ISP (edit: IPS/s-ips/as-ips) monitors have (as written in their characteristics) almost total viewing angles, while PVA monitors do not. So, it isnÃ‚Â´t logical to us that both technologies have equivalent viewing angles on paper, 178Ã‚Â°. We already said that many times, this is due to the "norms" that are used by manufacturers and arenÃ‚Â´t representative of real results. Figures for 5:1 or even 10:1 donÃ‚Â´t really even have a point.

link

And I agree. Todays viewing angle specs are not logical and even pointless.

Post by **Tamlin** » 30 Jul 2006, 18:46

Another interesting link from Behardware:

Another problem with this measure is that it only relates to one point in the middle of the monitor. With one eye positioned in a zero angle, compared to the center of the monitor, there is already a difference of a couple of degrees with the edges of the monitor. With a TN monitor over 20Ã‚Â° angle for vertical viewing from below, the center of the image will still be OK but the top of the image will start to darken.

link

On TN's they darken, on *VA's they loose detail when looking straight on the screen at 0 degree angle... This increases with size of screen if distance is the same to the screen.
In other words, still not a "perfect" image when looking directly at screen. Does anyone that voted 1 feel that they want to change their votes? ;)

Widescreen Gaming Forum