TN-panels are awful

I recently picked up a 19" TN-panel LCD monitor just to see if perhaps the technology had improved at all. My general opinion on them has been negative, but I went at it not expecting any miracles. My laptop has an IPS panel, and my HDTV has an MVA panel, so I'm familiar with the ins-and-outs of these two display techs (I prefer the IPS, but the black crush on the MVA isn't the end of the world, though the input lag is noticeable).

Anyway, I received my TN panel, did my best to calibrate it (an almost impossible task for reasons to be listed) and compared it to a somewhat old CRT.

1. The vertical viewing angles are awful. Color shifting occurs with the slightest head motion. Lean back in your chair, and the top third of the screen fades to brown.

2. Color is off badly enough that I'd almost prefer black-and-white. Colors appear artificial, with noticeable banding. The best way to describe it would be that it looks as though the colors were put in with highlighters, and a couple of them were missing.

3. Whites are off by a considerable degree, as are greys and black details.

4. Brightness varies considerably on certain colors, oranges and reds are far too bright.



This is the second TN-panel I've tested in six months, and I have to say, the experience is not pleasurable. My next purchase will be a different panel technology, but I'm concerned by the influx of 24" TNs, and the sparse selection of other panel technologies. It seems that ghosting matters more than color fidelity, viewing angle, contrast ratios, et cetera to some people - these monitors are just awful, to the point where I wish CRT was filling the role now held by TN.

Well , I can say my opion.

First of all , if humankind could have jumped over CRT , and invent LCD screens (even TN) without CRT , the world would be better now. Because after I changed from CRT screen to LCD screen 1 year ago , I said to myself "I never , ever use again CRT screen".I Know you're not talking about CRT , but still , I have a Sony BRAVIA LCD TV (no idea what panel , probably MVA?) and basicly it's the same for me to look at my TN LCD monitor and at the TV. Although 226BW (my monitor) has "enhanced" TN pannel , but my told TN LCD monitor was a normal TN , but it still looks the same like my TV.

For me , there's no diffrence between TN , MVA , PVA , IPS etc. Colors are the same , angel view are the same for me (I look from the side at my 226BW , and everything looks perfect)...

And about the topic name... TN Panels are good.

Crembo... I don't want to hurt your feelings, so I'll just say - you need to look again. There is absolutely no way to ignore the vastly superior color quality and vertical viewing angles on CRT and IPS panels when compared to TN. The word "enhanced" in front of a TN panel is nothing more than a marketing gimmic, I've tested an expensive full-feature TN and now a low-end, cheap TN, and they were both varying degrees of absolute suck.

I'm starring at an IPS panel right now, I have them side-by-side with a CRT and an MVA, and I can look at the differences between them displaying the same source with ease. Without a doubt, the TN panel is the ugly dog of the bunch, with its only redeaming feature being low ghosting. However, the color quality is so bad on the panel that I cannot game on it without being annoyed.
subrosian

Disagree, tell that to 4 of my monitors using TN panel where I do my photoshop editing and video editing works on.

Uggh... well I have them all lined up right now, and it's not like it's a subtle thing. The difference is amazing. For example, I have a black-to-white gradient set up, the MVA panel, the blacks are not showing as much definition down at the dark end of the spectrum. (extremely noticeable - gaming / movies the shadows are solid black) - details dissappear. On the CRT, the blacks are far more detailed. On the TN panel, the white part of the gradient is completely overblown, and there is serious banding in the grey. It's not at all subtle.

When I do color tests, the TN panel is absolutely crippled. It's like watching a sick child fall into a well. Absolutely *awful* comparing a $600 IPS panel to a $200 TN panel. I lower my chair 1" and the picture on the top third of the TN muddies instantly - the same thing happened on an expensive 22" TN monitor last year, hence why I swapped it out for the bigger MVA... but it's nuts how *bad* the TN panel is.

You are really getting ripped off if you own one. CRT doesn't hurt your eyes at all unless you don't know to set the refresh rate above 75hz. At 85hz, the CRT image is far more comfortable on the eyes than the 75hz TN image - as the color distoration is painful to look at. I cannot believe, now looking at yet another TN panel, that anyone can stand to use these - they are beyond bad. They're a complete disgrace - this is what Viewsonic and others stopped making studio-quality CRT monitors for?
subrosian

Disagrees, try telling that to 4 of my monitors using TN panel(and the 2nd generation TN panels FIY) where all my photoshop and video editing works are done. You must not know how to do color test my friend.

And why the hell are you comparing IPS to TN? Or for very much worse, comparing a $200 monitor to a $600 one.

I'm not defending TN panels. I'm just disagreeing with you saying TN panels are total crap, suckish-ass stuff. Compared to IPS panels and MVA panels, yes they are inferrior. But you are just over saying it, since when was TN panels crap?

And you have the nerve to say that I have zero professional experience.

I'm not defending TN panels. I'm just disagreeing with you saying TN panels are total crap, suckish-ass stuff. Compared to IPS panels and MVA panels, yes they are inferrior. But you are just over saying it, since when was TN panels crap?

And you have the nerve to say that I have zero professional experience.

SSJBen

TN panel is total crap. It cant even produce 16m colors -_-

Comparing a low-end 200$ TN monitor to a high-end 600$ IPS screen is hardly fair. Not every TN panel is the same and a 19 inch model already means a low-end panel.

I recently upgraded from a 500$ 19 inch MVA screen to a 300$ 22 inch TN screen screen.

Albeit it being a 6-bit , the colors and contrast are heaps better than on the MVA panel. The response time has clearly improved. The vertical viewing angle is still pretty poor, but better than on most of the cheaper TN monitors. There is also some backlight bleeding from the top. Overall, it's the better monitor.

Obviously a new IPS or MVA/PVA monitor would be better but at double the price.

I'm aware, but I've also tried out more expensive TN panels, and I found them to be almost unusable (for me). Regardless of whether I have "eagle eyes" I just find it to be frustrating that a technology that gave a pretty good picture (CRT) was replaced by a technology that has a lot of faults (TN-panel LCD). Non-TN monitors start at about $270, which is frustrating - there's a huge gap in pricing, and I can't help but feel like consumers who were happy with "good enough" and put form over function (lighter, thinner, sleeker) trainwrecked the market.

Back in the day, the difference between a $200 CRT and a $600 CRT was the size of the monitor, and the ability to hold studio-quality calibration. But still, the difference between $200 and $600 was mostly one of size, not drastic differences in viewability.

The only salvation technology I see right now is OLED - it is in every way superior to IPS panels - the new LED-LCD and FED both seem too expensive to manufacture to ever realistically drive out TN, whereas OLED, due to eventually being able to inkjet print them on almost any substrate, might finally become cheaper to manufacture, and drive out the old king.

Honestly, I'd heard about the faults of TN and thought it was exaggeration - I gave it a try for the second time and it drove me up a wall. It's not attractive (aesthetically) but old, clunky CRT monitors had the same picture quality regardless of whether you viewed them head-on, or slouched down in your chair.

-

SSJBen - I didn't say you have no professional experience, I'm just asking if you do professional print work? Photoshop is too common and general of an image manipulation program to be a guaranteed mark for printwork, where color fidelity on a monitor is most important. Not that you entirely rely on the colors on the monitor (at least, you shoudn't, since a monitor forms colors differently than ink) but it's nice to have a better idea while you're working.

lolooloolololoololl. Right , it can't produce 16milion colors , but it can 16.2 and 16.7 milion colors (16.7 are the "enhanced" TN panels).

TN panels are fine for everyone. It's jsut bad for you. That's it.

My monitor does the trick im not crying about it. Niether are alot of people. Pointless topic. I love my monitor and alot of people love theirs as well. My old CRT blew chunks it sucked. Fat ass screen...HUGE. So tired of it. And when I buy my next monitor I will let you pay the difference in what I would like to pay so I can get a "better" panel which I may not really notice.

This is kind of like me telling you that your car blows and my rocks. You like yours I like mine. I can see your girlfriend in the back seat but you cant.

Hey subrosian, what tn monitor did you get specifically.

I have a 19" Tyris that is ok for the price, but shows some of the kinds of problems you are talking about. But my Samsung 226BW looks completly different. As stated by others it has non of the ill effect you are discussing, or at least not enough for me to notice. I have watched plenty of movies on it with friends sitting around it at all angles and I heard no complaints.

If you wanted to use a TN panel like a TV then yes the viewing angles would be a bad thing, but since most people actually sit straight in front of their PC's it's not that big of a deal. And for the prices that reasonably big (20-24in) TN panels are going for, I consider them a pretty good deal.General_X

It's really bad - I have all four main panel types side-by-side right now (haven't gone to Staples to take it back yet) and the TN panel is absolutely the soggy dog of the bunch. The CRT isn't as crisp as any of the LCDs, but its black levels are the best. The IPS and MVA panel competition is well, sort of a "differences" thing - I wouldn't necessarily dislike using the MVA for gaming, but its black-levels aren't all there. The color is pretty good, however. The IPS panel is nice, it's different than the MVA panel, but both don't care about whether I'm "at eye level" or looking up or down at them or whatever - they're nice that way.

At extreme viewing angles they all seem to be fade (not that I care about extreme viewing angles in the least) but curiously enough on a black screen, the IPS panel has a purplish hue when viewed from the far side.

While I think the original poster is being a little over zealous in his attack on TN pannels. He does have a very good point. The picture on a TN panel is inferior to probably all the other mainstream monitor technologies out there. My Samsung 216BW is nice but it was very disapointing coming from a solid viewsonic CRT. The biggest annoyance for me is definately the verticle viewing angle. It drives my crazy how sensative the picture quality is to it. Having to position myself at just the right hight to get a decent image at the top and bottom of the screen is truly frustrating.

Unfortunatly, for the price, you just can't beat a TN panel. Unless you are doing professional graphics work, its extremely hard to justify paying 200% more for an equivalently sized monitor.

Dont get me wrong. I dont think I'd go so far as to say TN panels are bad in and of themselves. Its just frustrating that in this case function most certainly took a back seat to form.

lolooloolololoololl. Right , it can't produce 16milion colors , but it can 16.2 and 16.7 milion colors (16.7 are the "enhanced" TN panels).

TN panels are fine for everyone. It's jsut bad for you. That's it.

Crembo

We can bet that TN panel cant produce 16m of real colors. It cant even produce 1m of real, true colors. -_-

[QUOTE="Crembo"]

lolooloolololoololl. Right , it can't produce 16milion colors , but it can 16.2 and 16.7 milion colors (16.7 are the "enhanced" TN panels).

TN panels are fine for everyone. It's jsut bad for you. That's it.

domke13

We can bet that TN panel cant produce more then 256,000 real colors, and make others whit some tricks, which arent real colors. 16,2 is marketing trick again, which fools like you belive.

Thats a matter of opinion, some people would call you a fool for paying 75-100% more for a smaller screen, that is only slightly better.

Now you can sit there saying how bad this and how bad that, but the fact of the matter is I am 100% satisfied with my 226BW. So, why would I pay more for a smaller screen.

No, not all of them

The Gateway FHD240 is currently the best 24" gaming LCD on the market and it uses a BNT III TN panel

it got a 9/10 on extreme tech.

Question is, who the hell looks at their monitors at an angle? There is no reason for this unless you have a double or triple monitor setup, and even then the angles won't be bad enough to see any loss of image.

I think you're exagerating the problem to no end. I used to have a TN panel and it was just fine. It was a 19 inch, pretty old, and the colors were a little too vibrant, but i didnt have any of the problems you mention. 'lower 1 inch and the top becomes muddy'. I dont know what kind of monitor you're using but this doesn't happen with TN panels, I can assure you. 1 inch. 1 inch. Get the hell out of here, you couldn't even fool your grand ma with that blatant lie.

TN panels really don't have viewing angles that high. They might be advertised as so, but are really much lower due to the manufacturer's measuring the viewing angles of a TN panel differently.

That's rather strange that you would think a monitor with a P-MVA and a TN panel would look the same. Try putting them next to each other and then compare them.. try using a very vivid picture on both monitors and you should notice the colors being quite different... with the P-MVA being vastly superior.

[QUOTE="domke13"][QUOTE="Crembo"]

lolooloolololoololl. Right , it can't produce 16milion colors , but it can 16.2 and 16.7 milion colors (16.7 are the "enhanced" TN panels).

TN panels are fine for everyone. It's jsut bad for you. That's it.

opamando

We can bet that TN panel cant produce more then 256,000 real colors, and make others whit some tricks, which arent real colors. 16,2 is marketing trick again, which fools like you belive.

Thats a matter of opinion, some people would call you a fool for paying 75-100% more for a smaller screen, that is only slightly better.

Now you can sit there saying how bad this and how bad that, but the fact of the matter is I am 100% satisfied with my 226BW. So, why would I pay more for a smaller screen.

Question is, who the hell looks at their monitors at an angle? There is no reason for this unless you have a double or triple monitor setup, and even then the angles won't be bad enough to see any loss of image.drucom

Hello I have been looking at the Gamespot forums for a few years now and this topic inspired me to sign up so I could say something here. I just bought my first LCD monitor last June(2007) after playing games on a 19" CRT for several years. Let me say that LCDs have come a long way in the past few years. They were very expensive and looked horrible @ the year 2000 and a bit before that. But I am quite pleased with my 22" widescreen LCD. It's a Samsung 226BW. It's not perfect but it is HUGE!!! I noticed quite a few Gamespot members use these monitors,and for good reason.You can play games smoothly with them. I think for most people TFT technology fills the bill. If you need high quality graphic display,then the more expensive panels are for you.sihunt

There is no difference betwen 22" and 20", besides that you think (and phisicaly is) 22" is bigger. But resolution is the same. In games you gain nothing at all. Only thing you gain are bigger pixel which is actually bad thing...

Domke13 said this:

There is no difference betwen 22" and 20", besides that you think (and phisicaly is) 22" is bigger. But resolution is the same. In games you gain nothing at all. Only thing you gain are bigger pixel which is actually bad thing...

My Reply:

Ok what I meant was a 22" widescreen LCD is very much larger compared to a 19" CRT monitor. The 22" LCD has a screen size of 18-3\4" X 11-3\4" as compared to a 19" CRT which is 14-1\2 X 10-3\4. The pixels on the LCD are finer than the dot pitch of my CRT,according to the magnifying glass. I think you meant when you compare a 22" and a 20" LCD display there isn't a big difference.

To Subrosian:

I agree with you mostly that there are shortcomings to TN panels. The vewing angle thing had me bobbing my head for awhile after I got the LCD. I don't believe I have seen the better quality panels in person but I have seen their bigger prices listed online. But for me, I find my monitor to be very good for the purposes I use it for. It is true that most of the panels you see today are of the TN type. So my advice to anyone looking to buy an LCD is to see them on display and make up your own mind if it is suitable for you.

Uggh... well I have them all lined up right now, and it's not like it's a subtle thing. The difference is amazing. For example, I have a black-to-white gradient set up, the MVA panel, the blacks are not showing as much definition down at the dark end of the spectrum. (extremely noticeable - gaming / movies the shadows are solid black) - details dissappear. On the CRT, the blacks are far more detailed. On the TN panel, the white part of the gradient is completely overblown, and there is serious banding in the grey. It's not at all subtle.

When I do color tests, the TN panel is absolutely crippled. It's like watching a sick child fall into a well. Absolutely *awful* comparing a $600 IPS panel to a $200 TN panel. I lower my chair 1" and the picture on the top third of the TN muddies instantly - the same thing happened on an expensive 22" TN monitor last year, hence why I swapped it out for the bigger MVA... but it's nuts how *bad* the TN panel is.

You are really getting ripped off if you own one. CRT doesn't hurt your eyes at all unless you don't know to set the refresh rate above 75hz. At 85hz, the CRT image is far more comfortable on the eyes than the 75hz TN image - as the color distoration is painful to look at. I cannot believe, now looking at yet another TN panel, that anyone can stand to use these - they are beyond bad. They're a complete disgrace - this is what Viewsonic and others stopped making studio-quality CRT monitors for?
subrosian

TN panels really don't have viewing angles that high. They might be advertised as so, but are really much lower due to the manufacturer's measuring the viewing angles of a TN panel differently.

That's rather strange that you would think a monitor with a P-MVA and a TN panel would look the same. Try putting them next to each other and then compare them.. try using a very vivid picture on both monitors and you should notice the colors being quite different... with the P-MVA being vastly superior.

Hiryuu_

seriously i still cant see any difference maybe cos my tn panel has 3000.1 contrast ratio while the p-mva has 800.1

heres some pics

acer al2051w 20.1 p-mva http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/3183/acerod7.jpg

samsung syncmaster sm2032mw 20" http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/2078/samsungsc5.jpg

both 1680x1050 dvi

i think the tn looks better by the way this is the new tn panels not the crap u get on the much cheaper lcd like hanns g

heres some pics

acer al2051w 20.1 p-mva http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/3183/acerod7.jpg

samsung syncmaster sm2032mw 20" http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/2078/samsungsc5.jpg

both 1680x1050 dvi

i think the tn looks better by the way this is the new tn panels not the crap u get on the much cheaper lcd like hanns g

IQT786

1. Acer is an extremely low-end panel manufacturer, they're in the same league as Hanns G. There are ways to verify you actually got an MVA panel (as many low-end manufacturers will later trade out for TN panels). Also, keep in mind, I haven't even *begun* to get into panel quality. All TNs, even the "best" TN panels suck, but all bargain-bin LCDs are more or less crap, the quality control standards are unacceptable, and the backlight and electronics are ususally of inferior quality.

And yet, with them, you have no way of knowing what grade of panel you received (or even the panel type - if you find TN acceptable your eyesight is likely not good enough to distinguish panel grades).

2. That's *dynamic contrast* you cited, I severely doubt the real world contrast ratio of your Samsung is above 1000:1, I doubt it breaks 800:1. Without proper equipment it would be hard to measure, but if you've ever seen an OLED display or a studio CRT in person, you'll understand when I say "real contrast ratios are mind blowing not eye-burning". Most LCDs are simply *bright* which should not be confused with *good*.

3. I'm not going to make fun of you here, because my goal really is to educate, but you cannot take photographs of your monitors off-screen to show us the picture quality. A camera cannot take a picture that properly captures your screen (introducing limitations of camera), your photo editing / compression drastically alters the pictures (look at your JPEGs, does you monitor have compression artifacts? No - only the picture, if my monitor looked like that in real life I'd be seriously pissed), and last but most importantly we cannot see what your monitors look like in person by looking at a picture on our monitor. Your pictures don't tell us anything, we are tied to the monitor we use to look at your pictures.

The only visual thing you could do is tilt both monitors to sharp angles and take pictures from head on, so that you can see for yourself the darkening the occurs, though without a lot of experience and proper equipment you won't be able to photographically capture what we would actually see.

-

To make this short - you can't take a picture of a monitor to show us what it's image quality is like, we have to view it in person, otherwise the image quality is determined by the monitor we are using to view your photograph, your camera, and your photography skill.

Keep that in mind - if you ever see a technical article where they show you "side by side" pictures of different display technology (for any other purpose that to give you a rough idea of backlight bleed, cosmetics, size, or some kind of obvious visual flaw) you need to close your browser and find a better website. I cannot show you how much better S-IPS looks with a photograph, you need to see it side-by-side, in person, with proper lighting and calibration.

-

4. Find someone with an Apple Studio Monitor (S-IPS) and have them set your monitor next to theirs. Sit in the chair, and pull up this webpage on all three monitors. Now, watch a favorite movie on all three monitors. Then pull up photographs, surf the web a bit, and play a game. Now, if you can, get into a trade-show and look at OLED. Then head back and look at studio CRT. The only technology you'll ever e able to consider again is S-IPS, CRT, and OLED.

-

I don't say this lightly, TN-film technology is absolutely the worst thing to happen to visuals since occular cancer. We went from a mature technology with excellent color, contrast, and black levels, for a while were on the path to LCD having solid image quality, and then threw it out the window in favor of cost, ironically driving the price of non-TN monitors through the roof, as they became a niche commodity.

It's people who don't care, don't know, or want to defend what is by every metric an unacceptable display technology that have forced those of us who care about visual fidelity (which I thought was most PC gamers - considering we're willing to pay out the bum for good graphics cards) to wait it out and pray OLED gets cheap enough to drive a stake through the undead heart of TN.

LOL LOL how much does oled cost way more then tn and yes my acer is p-mva i think both are good please don't compare oled and ips to tn thats loco

for gaming = tn panel or p-mva

for graphic design = ips panel or oled

as for the samsung not even being 800.1 are u serous the native is 1000.1 and dynamic is 3000.1

that acer cost me £400 to u maybethats cheap not for me lol

LOL LOL how much does oled cost way more then tn and yes my acer is p-mva i think both are good please don't compare oled and ips to tn thats loco

for gaming = tn panel or p-mva

for graphic design = ips panel or oled

as for the samsung not even being 800.1 are u serous the native is 1000.1 and dynamic is 3000.1

that acer cost me £400 to u maybethats cheap not for me lol

IQT786

Your Acer monitor does not have a very high end panel. It uses the lowest-binned version of the VX2025wm panels. Please don't argue with me as I had done extensive research of monitors and panels in the past when looking to purchase the best one myself. OLEDs do not "cost" more than LCDs. If you buy OLEDs when they first come out, you are paying for the technology used to discover OLEDs, not the actual monitor. If you buy an OLED after a year or so, they will be cheaper than your TN panel is now. They are very inexpensive to produce, and will eventually be inkjet printed onto surfaces. Companies will make TONS of profits on OLED monitors when they are first released. They will also use their profits to gain back the money the invested in their LCD and Plasma factories. That is what happened when LCDs were released, they used their profits to gain back the money they invested in CRTs. So eventually, OLEDs will be dirt cheap, probably around a year after OLED computer monitors are released. Your samsung DOES NOT have a real contrast ratio of 1000:1 and it's hilarious how you believe Samsung's marketing tactics. Their contrast ratio is calculated from the brightness of their whites that are displayed on the monitor, not the darkness of their blacks displayed. And dynamic contrast ratio...LOL. That stuff does not matter in the least bit in the real world. Everything I've seen the OP post so far is correct, and I agree with him 100% on his statements. It's kind of funny to see the arguements people come with against him. If you've ever owned an S-IPS monitor, like the Dell 2007wfp or the NEC 20WMGX2, you will never want to touch TN panels again, not even with a 10 foot pole.

LOL LOL how much does oled cost way more then tn and yes my acer is p-mva i think both are good please don't compare oled and ips to tn thats loco

for gaming = tn panel or p-mva

for graphic design = ips panel or oled

as for the samsung not even being 800.1 are u serous the native is 1000.1 and dynamic is 3000.1

that acer cost me £400 to u maybethats cheap not for me lol

IQT786

I am pretty sure that my NEC 20WGX2 Pro whit S-IPS panel is better for gaming then TN and/or P-MVA panel....

[QUOTE="IQT786"]

LOL LOL how much does oled cost way more then tn and yes my acer is p-mva i think both are good please don't compare oled and ips to tn thats loco

for gaming = tn panel or p-mva

for graphic design = ips panel or oled

as for the samsung not even being 800.1 are u serous the native is 1000.1 and dynamic is 3000.1

that acer cost me £400 to u maybe thats cheap not for me lol

domke13

I am pretty sure that my NEC 20WGX2 Pro whit S-IPS panel is better for gaming then TN and/or P-MVA panel....

did i say ur wrong no but for gaming the newtn is enogh ive seen alot of tn panels most are crap but the new ones from samsung have really good colour please dont argue with me if you havent seen the new ones old tn panels are crap and look washed out