Good TV-as-Monitor: Samsung LN32B530, also boxing day stuff
Posted: 23 Dec 2009, 00:55
Before I get to the huge section about my new TV/monitor, I thought I'd let everyone in on something I noticed in my Best Buy boxing day flier. They will have the Logitech Performance Mouse MX on for $79.99. IN CANADA, that's an incredibly good price for what is currently the best mouse on the market. You will have a very difficult time finding another store that sells it for under $110. Americans might still get it on sale for what is, to them, a relatively good price. Like, say, $50. Since USD is such a rock-solid currency and everything.
I'm bitter.
HISTORY & REQUIREMENTS:
What I want is a monitor or TV which is at least 24" widescreen, preferably "normal gamut" due to the inherent problems with wide gamut. It must not process my input signal in any way, and must do 1:1 pixel mapping. It must be 1920x1080 or 1920x1200. It must have reasonably low input lag, 2-5ms g2g lag, good viewing angle, and not exhibit color banding or bad interpolation. Obviously, as good of a contrast ratio as possible.
I've been on this quest for the holy TV-as-Monitor for a little over a year now. I started out with an LG 32LH40 that I got on sale for around $800, around August of last year. Remember that this is Canada, so everything costs more. $800 was actually a good price for a 32" set with 120 hz.
A note about that: No TVs can currently actually accept a 120 hz input, so don't think of that as a make-or-break deal. It's sort of like how, for a while there, a lot of "full HD 1080p" sets weren't actually capable of accepting 60hz 1080p, but rather 60hz 1080i, "upconverted" to 30hz 1080p.
REVIEW:
What makes this TV so great? Because it's Samsung, it has a VA panel, which means input lag and ghosting, right? Not so much. I've played Shattered Horizon on this TV a fair bit, and it of all things would show ghosting. I've also done lots of L4D.
The only time ghosting is visible is when you purposefully engineer a situation where it will be easiest to see, and even then... you'd be complaining about something very minor and trivial.
The TV has what I've heard referred to as "heavy-duty" pixel overdrive, which is why there's little or no ghosting. I do not see any ill effects from this, and I have very good eyes for detail. Not to mention I'm very picky about what I'll hook up to my computer.
As for input lag, there IS some. I can't properly say how much, because I don't have a CRT around anymore to do any testing with. However, when hooked up side-by-side with my Samsung 2232 (a purpose-built gaming monitor), there is a noticable difference between the movement of an object on one versus the other. Clearly the actual "monitor" is better, but I don't think it is enough to warrant any concern. I would estimate that it is, at most, 1-2 frames slower than my 2232, which would mean 2-3 frames behind someone with a CRT. This, unfortunately, is something that one must live with.
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF TV-AS-MONITOR:
Why use a TV as a computer monitor? Because in the eyes of an ubergeek such as myself, the difference between them has diminished to the point of being irrelevant. The amount of, and type of, signal processing is the only difference. Most newer TVs from good brands, including my LN32B530, allow you to use "PC"-mode input, which disables all processing. Basically, a "TV" now is just a hugeass monitor with a lower resolution than you'd get if you bought a comparably-sized "monitor".
In any case, input lag is something people are becoming more familiar with now thanks to the Console Tard Revolution. TV designers are working around this, and at this point I think the advantage of greater screen size negates the disadvantage of 1-2 frames of lag.
Smaller pixels, a low dot pitch, these are good things, right? Not always. In my case, either my eyes are feeling the wear and tear of staring at a glowing box most of the day since I was 4, or... no, that's what it is. In any case, I personally feel that at 32", 1920x1080 is a perfect resolution when you're sitting 12-18" away. For graphics work, larger pixels is NOT a bad thing, since you'd end up just zooming in anyway. For games, larger pixels is NOT a bad thing, since it lets you see tiny things more easily, at the cost of aliasing becoming much more noticeable... but then you enable 4x FSAA or sometimes even just 2x FSAA and the problem is eliminated completely.
But going with a TV means you'll lose the extra 120 pixels of vertical space, a bad thing, right? Again, not necessarily. Most games scale your field of view based on your aspect ratio, meaning that a player with a 16:9 display will actually see more of what's around them than someone with a 16:10 (8:5) display.
TVs also give you the nice advantage of universal input compatibility, allowing you to maybe connect a PS3, 360, Wii, or even an actual television signal to your display (of all things).
CONCLUSION:
So, now you know why a "TV" is a viable alternative to a "monitor", why do I like this particular model so much? It has a VA panel, which isn't as good as IPS, right? Again, there's not really a "better" or "worse" here, just different. VA gives you much nicer blacks and smoother graduations between dark shades, meaning a much better real contrast ratio.
Some specific reasons I like this particular TV are:
A) Samsung made it. I have bought TVs and monitors from many different brands and never had the success with them that I've had with Samsung. Buying Samsung doesn't mean you will always get something perfect, but they typically seem to be very good without getting into Sony price territory. It's sort of like the way that I have only had very good success with Asus motherboards and Western Digital hard drives. It's not a guarantee of success, but in general you get premium performance, a lower rate of defects, and a fair price.
B) PC mode input doesn't screw around with your signal at all. This is a problem that is becoming less common, but it's still out there.
C) Great contrast, blacks are very black, whites are very white, good color reproduction
D) It's a regular 8-bit panel so no "wide gamut" problems giving everything a california tan.
D) Good price. I paid $629 CAD at Best Buy. The other candidates for my "monitor to hold me over until OLED" started at this price and were only 24", but both were wide-gamut and known to have horrible QC issues (HP 2475w & Dell U2410).
CONFIGURATION AND OTHER STUFF:
After some extensive testing I've deduced that this TV doesn't treat brightess and contrast settings as being fully independent of each other. In other words, if you raise the contrast above a certain setting, the black level will actually get worse (ie, brighter blacks).
Fortunately for you, I have no life, and as such I created this guide for obtaining the optimal black level.
55 is as high as the contrast can go at brightness 49.
62 is as high as the contrast can go at brightness 48.
70 is as high as the contrast can go at brightness 47.
77 is as high as the contrast can go at brightness 46.
85 is as high as the contrast can go at brightness 45.
92 is as high as the contrast can go at brightness 44.
At brightness 43, you can go from contrast 0 to contrast 100 with no variation in black level!
However, if I go above 95 in contrast, I can't tell the difference between the last two shades of red on the Lagom quick contrast test. And, if I go below 44 in brightness, the darkest shade of gray on black level test is lost in the background. Even at 44, it is only easily visible by looking at the screen from one side. Therefore, for the sake of being sure that no detail is lost, I recommend 46B/77C as a the optimal brightness/contrast value.
Basic Settings
Mode: Standard
Backlight: Has no impact on IQ, I use 3 at night and 6 during the day
Contrast: 77
Brightness: 46
Sharpness: 50
Color: 50
Tint: 50/50
Advanced Settings
Black Tone: Off
Dynamic Contrast: Off
Gamma: 0
Color Space: Auto
White Balance: (Unmodified for now, I'm still tweaking this for best results)
Flesh Tone: 0
Edge Enhancement: Off
Picture Options
Color Tone: Normal (note that if you switch to "movie" mode, you will be able to adjust this besides just cool and normal, but I don't know what other things "movie" mode might do)
Size: 16:9
Digital NR: Off
HDMI Black Level: Normal
Film Mode: Off
Source: HDMI 1, "PC" (DVI-PC doesn't accept audio over HDMI and makes my TV hiss for some reason)
Will post some pics later, also a pack of wallpapers I've put together for anyone else with a big monitor they want to show off.
OTHER CONTENDERS:
I would also recommend an LG 32LH30 or 32LH40, if they hadn't played panel-switch and gone to a *horrible* panel that smears colors together. AF apparently has one of the good ones and he likes it very much. As mentioned previously, the HP 2475w and Dell U2410 would be reasonable alternatives if they weren't prone to being garbage. Certain Philips TVs would be contenders, if not for the fact that they don't work worth shit.
OBLIGATORY HUGE PAIN IN THE ASS THAT RUINS EVERYTHING:
Samsung is not above playing panel lottery either. Do not buy this TV at a store that has a harsh return policy. If possible, find a store that will allow you to open the box up while you're still there. and look for the sticker on the right side of the TV. You want "Version SS03" or SS02 or SS01. Anything beginning with "SS" is probably fine. The SS03 version seems to currently be the most common one on the market.
I'm not saying that you will love this TV or even be satisfied with it. I'm not claiming that you won't get any dead pixels - I didn't though. I realize that the colors out of the box are probably not professional grade, but for me this isn't a deal breaker. Do NOT buy this TV at a store that has a bad return policy. The reason I wrote this review is to perhaps steer someone in what may be the right direction, because reading a review like this is what made me decide to give this TV a try.
I'm bitter.
HISTORY & REQUIREMENTS:
What I want is a monitor or TV which is at least 24" widescreen, preferably "normal gamut" due to the inherent problems with wide gamut. It must not process my input signal in any way, and must do 1:1 pixel mapping. It must be 1920x1080 or 1920x1200. It must have reasonably low input lag, 2-5ms g2g lag, good viewing angle, and not exhibit color banding or bad interpolation. Obviously, as good of a contrast ratio as possible.
I've been on this quest for the holy TV-as-Monitor for a little over a year now. I started out with an LG 32LH40 that I got on sale for around $800, around August of last year. Remember that this is Canada, so everything costs more. $800 was actually a good price for a 32" set with 120 hz.
A note about that: No TVs can currently actually accept a 120 hz input, so don't think of that as a make-or-break deal. It's sort of like how, for a while there, a lot of "full HD 1080p" sets weren't actually capable of accepting 60hz 1080p, but rather 60hz 1080i, "upconverted" to 30hz 1080p.
REVIEW:
What makes this TV so great? Because it's Samsung, it has a VA panel, which means input lag and ghosting, right? Not so much. I've played Shattered Horizon on this TV a fair bit, and it of all things would show ghosting. I've also done lots of L4D.
The only time ghosting is visible is when you purposefully engineer a situation where it will be easiest to see, and even then... you'd be complaining about something very minor and trivial.
The TV has what I've heard referred to as "heavy-duty" pixel overdrive, which is why there's little or no ghosting. I do not see any ill effects from this, and I have very good eyes for detail. Not to mention I'm very picky about what I'll hook up to my computer.
As for input lag, there IS some. I can't properly say how much, because I don't have a CRT around anymore to do any testing with. However, when hooked up side-by-side with my Samsung 2232 (a purpose-built gaming monitor), there is a noticable difference between the movement of an object on one versus the other. Clearly the actual "monitor" is better, but I don't think it is enough to warrant any concern. I would estimate that it is, at most, 1-2 frames slower than my 2232, which would mean 2-3 frames behind someone with a CRT. This, unfortunately, is something that one must live with.
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF TV-AS-MONITOR:
Why use a TV as a computer monitor? Because in the eyes of an ubergeek such as myself, the difference between them has diminished to the point of being irrelevant. The amount of, and type of, signal processing is the only difference. Most newer TVs from good brands, including my LN32B530, allow you to use "PC"-mode input, which disables all processing. Basically, a "TV" now is just a hugeass monitor with a lower resolution than you'd get if you bought a comparably-sized "monitor".
In any case, input lag is something people are becoming more familiar with now thanks to the Console Tard Revolution. TV designers are working around this, and at this point I think the advantage of greater screen size negates the disadvantage of 1-2 frames of lag.
Smaller pixels, a low dot pitch, these are good things, right? Not always. In my case, either my eyes are feeling the wear and tear of staring at a glowing box most of the day since I was 4, or... no, that's what it is. In any case, I personally feel that at 32", 1920x1080 is a perfect resolution when you're sitting 12-18" away. For graphics work, larger pixels is NOT a bad thing, since you'd end up just zooming in anyway. For games, larger pixels is NOT a bad thing, since it lets you see tiny things more easily, at the cost of aliasing becoming much more noticeable... but then you enable 4x FSAA or sometimes even just 2x FSAA and the problem is eliminated completely.
But going with a TV means you'll lose the extra 120 pixels of vertical space, a bad thing, right? Again, not necessarily. Most games scale your field of view based on your aspect ratio, meaning that a player with a 16:9 display will actually see more of what's around them than someone with a 16:10 (8:5) display.
TVs also give you the nice advantage of universal input compatibility, allowing you to maybe connect a PS3, 360, Wii, or even an actual television signal to your display (of all things).
CONCLUSION:
So, now you know why a "TV" is a viable alternative to a "monitor", why do I like this particular model so much? It has a VA panel, which isn't as good as IPS, right? Again, there's not really a "better" or "worse" here, just different. VA gives you much nicer blacks and smoother graduations between dark shades, meaning a much better real contrast ratio.
Some specific reasons I like this particular TV are:
A) Samsung made it. I have bought TVs and monitors from many different brands and never had the success with them that I've had with Samsung. Buying Samsung doesn't mean you will always get something perfect, but they typically seem to be very good without getting into Sony price territory. It's sort of like the way that I have only had very good success with Asus motherboards and Western Digital hard drives. It's not a guarantee of success, but in general you get premium performance, a lower rate of defects, and a fair price.
B) PC mode input doesn't screw around with your signal at all. This is a problem that is becoming less common, but it's still out there.
C) Great contrast, blacks are very black, whites are very white, good color reproduction
D) It's a regular 8-bit panel so no "wide gamut" problems giving everything a california tan.
D) Good price. I paid $629 CAD at Best Buy. The other candidates for my "monitor to hold me over until OLED" started at this price and were only 24", but both were wide-gamut and known to have horrible QC issues (HP 2475w & Dell U2410).
CONFIGURATION AND OTHER STUFF:
After some extensive testing I've deduced that this TV doesn't treat brightess and contrast settings as being fully independent of each other. In other words, if you raise the contrast above a certain setting, the black level will actually get worse (ie, brighter blacks).
Fortunately for you, I have no life, and as such I created this guide for obtaining the optimal black level.
55 is as high as the contrast can go at brightness 49.
62 is as high as the contrast can go at brightness 48.
70 is as high as the contrast can go at brightness 47.
77 is as high as the contrast can go at brightness 46.
85 is as high as the contrast can go at brightness 45.
92 is as high as the contrast can go at brightness 44.
At brightness 43, you can go from contrast 0 to contrast 100 with no variation in black level!
However, if I go above 95 in contrast, I can't tell the difference between the last two shades of red on the Lagom quick contrast test. And, if I go below 44 in brightness, the darkest shade of gray on black level test is lost in the background. Even at 44, it is only easily visible by looking at the screen from one side. Therefore, for the sake of being sure that no detail is lost, I recommend 46B/77C as a the optimal brightness/contrast value.
Basic Settings
Mode: Standard
Backlight: Has no impact on IQ, I use 3 at night and 6 during the day
Contrast: 77
Brightness: 46
Sharpness: 50
Color: 50
Tint: 50/50
Advanced Settings
Black Tone: Off
Dynamic Contrast: Off
Gamma: 0
Color Space: Auto
White Balance: (Unmodified for now, I'm still tweaking this for best results)
Flesh Tone: 0
Edge Enhancement: Off
Picture Options
Color Tone: Normal (note that if you switch to "movie" mode, you will be able to adjust this besides just cool and normal, but I don't know what other things "movie" mode might do)
Size: 16:9
Digital NR: Off
HDMI Black Level: Normal
Film Mode: Off
Source: HDMI 1, "PC" (DVI-PC doesn't accept audio over HDMI and makes my TV hiss for some reason)
Will post some pics later, also a pack of wallpapers I've put together for anyone else with a big monitor they want to show off.
OTHER CONTENDERS:
I would also recommend an LG 32LH30 or 32LH40, if they hadn't played panel-switch and gone to a *horrible* panel that smears colors together. AF apparently has one of the good ones and he likes it very much. As mentioned previously, the HP 2475w and Dell U2410 would be reasonable alternatives if they weren't prone to being garbage. Certain Philips TVs would be contenders, if not for the fact that they don't work worth shit.
OBLIGATORY HUGE PAIN IN THE ASS THAT RUINS EVERYTHING:
Samsung is not above playing panel lottery either. Do not buy this TV at a store that has a harsh return policy. If possible, find a store that will allow you to open the box up while you're still there. and look for the sticker on the right side of the TV. You want "Version SS03" or SS02 or SS01. Anything beginning with "SS" is probably fine. The SS03 version seems to currently be the most common one on the market.
I'm not saying that you will love this TV or even be satisfied with it. I'm not claiming that you won't get any dead pixels - I didn't though. I realize that the colors out of the box are probably not professional grade, but for me this isn't a deal breaker. Do NOT buy this TV at a store that has a bad return policy. The reason I wrote this review is to perhaps steer someone in what may be the right direction, because reading a review like this is what made me decide to give this TV a try.
