|
Introduction:::...
I
don't suppose I'm unique in the way I've viewed LCD display
technology developing over the past few years. Like many
people I've often been heard to mutter that "I wouldn't
mind one some day" while at the same time feeling somewhat
unconfortable about the high prices and unimpressive performance.
There's
no doubt I would benefit from the lighter weight and extra
desk space, but would an LCD monitor really have been much
more than a nice conversation starter when I felt flexing
my geek muscles? Probably not.
My
real problem with LCD technology has always been that no
matter how appealing it seemed on the surface, there have
always been far too many cons and not nearly enough pros
to convince me to put my hand in my pocket. From the inherrent
inability to cope equally well with a variety of resolutions
and the generally mediocre ability to display clear text,
to ghosting and trails caused by the low response times
of individual pixels, the technology was hardly generating
a compelling sales pitch!
I
think that the poor response times were possibly my number
one reason for staying with my trusty CRT, Even the CRT
has faced the problem of poor response times in the past
though, as early phosphors had a tendency to glow for a
very brief period even after the electron gun had moved
on and thus stopped bombarding that point with electrons.
The problem improved significantly with the later development
of what were known as "low persistence phosphors",
phosphors that stopped glowing pretty much immediately when
the gun moved on to the next pixel.
The
problem of response times on LCD displays has been further
complicated by variations in the way the times are measured.
Some manufacturers tend to measure the time it takes a pixel
to go from black to white then back to black again (TrTf
), but by far a more relevant result comes from calculating
the time it takes for a pixel to cange from one shade of
gray to another (GTG), or from gray to black/black to gray,
which often tends to yeild a much slower response time,
albeit one that's far more critical for things like gaming
and movie playback. That is unless you're playing Colin
McRae Rally and driving a black car on a snow-bound stage.
The
reason for the slower response time is due to the fact that
when you turn a pixel from off to fully on, you give it
a full compliment of voltage and it of course responds quickly.
If, however, you only want that same pixel to darken by
25%, you give it considerably less voltage and it responds
correspondingly less vigorously. The fact that your average
frame of video or scene from a game is composed of all manner
of shades including blacks and whites, and consist of a
variety of colours, each of which rely on three individual
coloured pixels to create them, and you start to see how
pointless and irrelevant quoted response times often are
other than as a very rough guide.
So,
with price, response times, and text handling stacked against
them, why would I even want to review an LCD monitor at
all? Well, the answer is that this particular model claims
it can tackle all three shortcomings head on and succeed!
Marketing BS or a display that may at last get me to switch
camp and join the LCD revolution? We shall see.
Let's
do the specs.
There's
a couple of things worth mentioning before we move on. First
is the weight. At a mere 3.5kg (that's 7.7lbs), this an
extremely lightweight unit.
The
next thing is the response time. 10 msec? Get real! Actually,
it's no mistake, iiyama are quite sincere in their claims
that the E435 can pull off a genuine 10 msec performance.
We shall see.
Let's
grab a look at the physical properties of the monitor:
|
