What's the big diff between Contrast Ratio - Overclock.net

Tsuna · 07-03-09

I saw a lg monitor with 50000:1 contrast ratio and it costs $198. I saw another lg monitor with 30000:1 contrast ratio and it costs $171. Is it really worth it for the extra 20000 contrast?

Swiftes · 07-03-09

Most of the time that is Dynamic Contrast Ratio. IE:

My Monitor has a 5000:1 CR
with software that becomes 10000:1 CR

Many monitors have things similar to that. And for the difference in price, no it isn't worth it unless one has a 5ms Response Rate whilst the other has a 2ms for instance.

Tsuna · 07-03-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swiftes

Most of the time that is Dynamic Contrast Ratio. IE:

My Monitor has a 5000:1 CR
with software that becomes 10000:1 CR

Many monitors have things similar to that. And for the difference in price, no it isn't worth it unless one has a 5ms Response Rate whilst the other has a 2ms for instance.

Oh ya i forgot to state. The monitor with 50000:1 CR has a 2ms RT whereas the 30000:1 CR has a 5ms RT.

JNielson · 07-03-09

Go for the one with 2ms... you want a fast response time

smoke12291 · 07-03-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by JNielson

Go for the one with 2ms... you want a fast response time

yes you do!

I made a switch from an older dell 5ms to the samsung in my sig (2ms) and the change was well worth it.

Tsuna · 07-03-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by JNielson

Go for the one with 2ms... you want a fast response time

Ok thanks.

003 · 07-03-09

hahaha. Dynamic contrast ratio is easily the biggest farce in the entire LCD industry. Measure one of those 50000:1 LCDs with a colorimeter and you will see the actual contrast ratio is probably no higher than 600:1.

The static contrast ratio is the only one that really matters, and most all manufacturers don't even advertise what it is, even in the fine print.

The very best LCD that money can buy will not have a contrast ratio that is higher than around 900:1 or 1000:1.

Tsuna · 07-03-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by 003

hahaha. Dynamic contrast ratio is easily the biggest farce in the entire LCD industry. Measure one of those 50000:1 LCDs with a colorimeter and you will see the actual contrast ratio is probably no higher than 600:1.

The static contrast ratio is the only one that really matters, and most all manufacturers don't even advertise what it is, even in the fine print.

The very best LCD that money can buy will not have a contrast ratio that is higher than around 900:1 or 1000:1.

How do u all think about the one on the right side? The $288 one.

003 · 07-03-09

I mean in reality there is probably very little difference between the two. They are just standard TN LCDs. I'd go for the 50000:1 just because it's only $10 more.

Dudebroguy · 07-03-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by 003

hahaha. Dynamic contrast ratio is easily the biggest farce in the entire LCD industry. Measure one of those 50000:1 LCDs with a colorimeter and you will see the actual contrast ratio is probably no higher than 600:1.

The static contrast ratio is the only one that really matters, and most all manufacturers don't even advertise what it is, even in the fine print.

The very best LCD that money can buy will not have a contrast ratio that is higher than around 900:1 or 1000:1.

This

And its not just contrast ratio that's a farce either. You also can't believe the advertised response time of a panel. It could be the minimum, average, or maximum response time, or (usually) none of the above. Most TN panels have an average response time of anywhere from 7 to 20ms (in the real world).

But the madness doesn't stop there. Advertised viewing angles are also completely worthless on TN panels if not outright lies.

The numbers and specs can be manipulated in any way the manufacturer pleases. Since there's no standard in measuring any of these specs.

		Overclock.net - Overclocking.net > Components > Monitors and Displays
What's the big diff between Contrast Ratio

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)