You’ll also know we have a real issue with many claims made by manufacturers. We generally find dynamic contrast (and its ludicrous headline-grabbing figures) detrimental to the movie-watching experience, and we’ve long stopped seeing any real motion blur on today’s panels. Quoted brightness figures don’t often appear to have any relation to the panels we test, and the pre-defined modes for movies, games and text usually make things worse.

It seems we’re not the only ones fed up of wading through hype and misdirection to gauge the actual quality of a monitor, though. The President of DisplayMate himself, Dr. Raymond Soneira, has written an excellent article on US tech site Maximum PC called “Display Myths Shattered: How Monitor and HDTV Companies Cook Their Specs“ in which he dissects these claims with insightful despair.

It’s well worth reading in full if you have even a passing interest in the specs of your PC monitor or HDTV, but the highlights will be reassuring to anyone who feels increasingly lost in a sea of jargon and marketing claptrap. Among the many points, he explains:

• why dynamic contrast modes don’t work, why the “sordid business” of quoting them in place of standard ratios needs to stop, and why a high contrast generally doesn’t matter a whole lot in the majority of onscreen tasks anyway.

• why quoted response time figures usually bear little relation to the actual response time of the panel, and are only really relevant to gamers.

To quote the results of a test in which Dr. Soneira lined up 11 HDTVs side-by-side and got experts and consumers to evaluate them:

“We found that there was no visually detectable difference in motion blur for the mid- to top-of-the-line LCD HDTVs. This regardless of their claimed pixel response times, 60Hz or 120Hz refresh rates, strobed LED backlighting, or motion-enhancement processing. If you find this surprising then just re-read the classic tale of The Emperor’s New Clothes.”

• why, when it comes to colour gamut, wider is not always better:

“A larger gamut will simply make all of the screen colors for standard production content appear more saturated than they ought to appear. Indeed, displays claiming more than 100 percent of the standard color gamut simply can’t show colors that aren’t in the original source image. Expanded gamuts are just gimmicks that make consumers think they’re getting something better.”

There are many more angry dissections and dismissals of features dreamed up in a PR meeting rather than a Lab, and they all refer to the DisplayMate tests we use in every monitor review. As Dr. Soneira wisely says, “the only specs that are useful and meaningful are those in reviews that evaluate every display with the same consistent methodology.” Remember that next time you’re shopping for a new TFT, it might save you a few quid.

Which is why I am quite delighted that Maplin have a TFT screen cleaner on sale at half price, that actually does a good job.

The triangular shape and stiff backing mean it gets in those corners, and the squirty spray gets rid of embrrassing projectile sandwich remains, and yet leaves no trace of streak behind.

This should be such an easy thing to do, and important since we all gawp at screens morning, noon and night. But I’ve spent a lot more in the past and got a lot less…

The majority of the displays on show were impressive refreshes, such as the polished and angular ‘Lavender’ line and the ‘Ecofit’ low-power models – all of which we’ll be reviewing over the coming months. But in amongst them a few interesting additions caught my eye.

The first was the so-called ‘lapfit’ display (LD220 and LD190N), which is essentially a widescreen monitor without the traditional stand. Instead it rests on an arm in the same way as a picture frame.

Intended for use as a second screen for a laptop, it connects via USB, consumes a claimed 33% less power than a traditional TFT and comes in 22in (1080p) and 19in (1,360 x 768) variants. In use we can verify it’s up to the usual image quality standards, even if it does seem a little gimmicky, almost like a consumer-style docking station.

I’ve looked at Samsung’s 120Hz 2233RZ 3D monitor in this month’s 3D: Coming to a Screen Near You magazine feature, and I’ll be giving it a full online review with Nvidia’s GeForce 3D Vision glasses very soon. So instead I’ll skip onto the latest entry in the burgeoning pico-projector market – and potentially the first to present a genuinely useable experience.

It’s called the P410M and, despite being as petite as every other pico model we’ve seen, it betters most with an 800 x 600, 170-lumen image up to 80in. Contrast is 1,000:1, there’s a set of 1W stereo speakers inside that produce a far louder sound than seems possible, and even though the little 900g projector had been running for hours when we played with it it was barely even warm. We’ll be getting one in as soon as samples are available.

The last new offering to really catch my eye was a late addition to the launch; I’ll try to get hold of some images from Samsung but they won’t do these monitors justice. They were 20in and 23in TFTs with thin aluminium stands and what I believe the rep told me were C-PVA panels – apparently sitting between TN and S-PVA in quality terms, they looked hugely impressive in my brief hands-on. Enthusiastic home photographers may finally have the perfect monitor, as this display technology means more accurate colours but without the price hike that usually comes with S-PVA. I’ll get full details from Samsung and update this post, and they won’t be out until June but, again, we’ll be getting one in as soon as we can.

So it looks like Samsung has more than enough in store over the coming months to retain its strong position in the display market. I’ll leave you with the new Lavender and super-thin Ecofit designs, including a remarkable new glass stand on the latter. Eye-catching indeed.

While researching an upcoming feature, I found a link from the BBC. Entitled “Why 3D is about to break through“, it explains the exciting world of 3D movies and projection, before concluding that it “looks like the future of 3D is firming up.”

Only trouble is, the article was from over a year ago. Since then I’ve been to see Beowulf at the IMAX, and toyed with an old game on one of Zalman’s monitors, but I can hardly say 3D leapt out at me through 2008.

This year, though, is different – one look at the barrage of 3D TVs launched at CES is enough to realise that. But while the industry hypes it, I’m intrigued to know whether you, the consumers, are actually interested in 3D at all. Going to a movie once in a while is one thing, spending your own money on kit is another entirely.

So, is it something you’d consider investing in? And, gaming and movies aside, are there any applications for which you see 3D being genuinely useful?

For a while now I’ve been blathering on to anyone who’ll listen (and plenty who’d rather not – Ed) about falling TFT prices, while marvelling at the bargains that can currently be had. Large-format TFTs have gone from expensive luxuries to affordable commodities in a remarkably short period of time, so I wasn’t surprised to read today that the head of LG Display, Kwon Young-soo Kwon, believes the industry has “hit the bottom.”

I’ve just finished writing a TFTs Labs for next month’s issue so I know first-hand just how crazy the market has become. We had one 22in TFT for £80 plus VAT, a 24in model for £140 plus VAT and even a monstrous 28in for a little over £200 plus VAT. If I remember correctly, some of these prices are cheaper than 17in and 19in TFTs reviewed just months previously.

It can’t be healthy for a whole industry to plummet so quickly in order to chase declining sales, and the remarks from Kwon at LG back this up. He sees displays for mobile devices as the next major revenue stream to come to the rescue, but the problem for the desktop TFT is where it can go from here. In the past the cheap, smaller TFTs have held the majority of the market share, but there has always been the lure of the larger models – the 22in and 24in ‘giants’ that came at a hefty premium – to keep margins up and to excite us about the future.

In today’s market those very TFTs have become the mainstream, but there’s no longer the same higher segment to look forward to. Would a 30in TFT fit on most home desks? I know my reason for not wanting one is not that it’s too dear, it’s that it simply isn’t practical in my home, and I’m sure many would agree. Even a 28in TFT swamps the average work desk, and I’d argue buying two smaller – and cheaper – screens is infinitely more practical for daily use.

Maybe branching out into other niche markets could bring some relief. Nvidia has decided 2009 will be the year of the 3D monitor (as a preview on our newest sister site BitTech.net demonstrates), which is certainly an area of premium prices right now; Samsung and ViewSonic are on board already, others will inevitably follow.

Touchscreen technology has also been slowly growing, and will certainly come into focus more now Windows 7 is out in the wild. And then there’s the bright light in the distance that is OLED, a technology with astonishing potential but precious little chance of hitting consumer desktops in any helpful timeframe.

Which leaves the industry in a muddle: the large money-spinners have turned into the cheap mainstream fodder, and there are fewer and fewer premium products to take their place. Prestige brands like Sony opted out long ago, and you can count on one hand those remaining, such as Samsung, with the quality to continue to keep both their prices and their sales figures high.

In one sense it’s great news for consumers, as a generic but perfectly usable 22in TFT for £80 should mean everyone can afford to extend their desktop. But the worry is that if we all get too used to cheap and cheerful TFT prices, it’s not too hard to imagine the likes of Samsung, LG et al packing their boxes and joining Sony on the outside looking in – and with that quality gone we’d all be worse off.

When upgrading a PC, the monitor is often the one thing people keep hold of. The rationale goes that it still works perfectly well and newer screens still use the same TFT technology that’s dominated the industry in recent times. Why shell out for a new one?

I’ve just finished testing Iiyama’s latest flagship model – a 26in monster of a display with DVI, VGA and HDMI inputs and a very impressive set of 5W speakers. It’s a solid TFT, and I was expecting a reasonably attractive price given the non-adjustable stand, but I was staggered to see just how cheap it is.

A retail price of £240 (£282 inc VAT) for a huge 26in screen is simply unheard of. That’s cheaper than any 26in screen I’ve yet seen, and it also blows away many 24in models. Even the best 22in displays cost more than that, yet here’s a massive screen at a price I’d never have predicted a year ago.

It got me thinking, how cheap can you go when buying a monitor?

A quick search online reveals that you can now pick up a basic 24in screen for just £183 (£215 inc VAT). Move down to 22in and prices start at £106 (£125 inc VAT), while 20in will cost you just £85 (£100 inc VAT).

At 19in you can pick something up for £72 (£85 inc VAT), while a bog-standard widescreen 17in can now be had for just £63 (£74 inc VAT).

These eye-opening prices were all found at reputable online retailers in the UK, and all the monitors are established brands rather than generic or rebranded models. Admittedly they’re about as bare in terms of features as you can get, but for basic web browsing and work use I doubt many people actually need most of the extras on offer these days.

That 22in threshold seems to offer the best value – just £20-odd dearer than 20in, yet nearly £80 cheaper than a 24in desk-hogger.

So forget about the credit crunch. If you’re upgrading your PC soon, or just fancy a bigger TFT, there’s never been a better time to jump up a few screen sizes. Those of you squinting at your old 17in display could probably afford a far bigger upgrade than you imagined.

But what worked for the old days of magazines is just getting ridiculous in this online, instant age.

In the last month alone I’ve spent days with several brand new products from several different manufacturers, each interesting in its own way, and each so new that no reviews currently exist on the internet. But rather than basking in the glow of all that humming web traffic, I’m just about ready to put my foot through the next TFT that lands in our loading bay.

The conversation usually starts well. “Hi David, great news! We’ve got this great new monitor/laptop/cat that’s just arrived. Tell you what, you can have it early if you want?”

“Early? Like an exclusive?” I perk up. “Sure, send it in!”

Said device arrives, I get to work testing it down in the dungeon that is the PC Pro Labs. The details are emailed through to me – specs and pictures, obligatory overexcited press release – and I begin writing my review. But there’s just one thing missing: what’s the price going to be?

I get back to them: “Price? Is that not on there? Oh, we’ll find out and get back to you.”

Great. A few days later the review’s pretty much written and ready to run, I just need the price to write my final conclusion. I chase them up again: “Yep, working on it. With you ASAP.”

The product goes to our professional photographers, they spend their time (and our budget) making the ugliest product look startlingly beautiful (try that with some IT kit of your own and you’ll realise what a good job they do) with different styles for both mag and web. I send my provisional review to be edited, the sub-editors check the copy and the details, and we start to lay it out for the magazine and online. But the review copy can’t go yet as I still don’t have a price.

A review can’t be finished if i don’t know how much the damn thing’s going to cost.

But what’s this? Could this really be? It is! An email from the company. Finally, I can get it finished off and still get it online before those [censored] at www.[censored].co.uk get theirs done. Hurrah! But then I read it.

“This product will not be launched to retail until August. The SRP has not currently been decided.”

Oh.

Note to manufacturers: Exclusive reviews aren’t exclusive reviews if they’re just previews.

LG’s newest 22in TFT, the W2252TE, is a case in point. Heralded in its press release as “the world’s most energy efficient monitor”, it claims to offer “a 45% reduction (40W) in power consumption, leading the way in environmentally friendly computer screens”.

Inevitably, the question arises: a 45% reduction over what? No comparison is offered, no rival energy-efficient monitor or even the name of a standard monitor against which the LG may have been tested. The 45% reduction could be over the most power-hungry monitor in the world for all we know. And what does that 40W figure in parentheses represent? The power consumption of this monitor? Of the comparison monitor? Or is 40W the reduction itself?

Scrolling to the specs buried right at the bottom of the release we learn that the power consumption of the W2252TE is in fact 22W – surely a more headline-grabbing figure than the “45% energy reduction” that again follows it. So we know the 40W figure must be the monitor to which LG is comparing the W2252TE, but again we’re given no clue as to what monitor this could be. Another LG monitor? A rival manufacturer? Same size or larger? The figures are meaningless without this information.

It’s nothing new to us. Graphics card manufacturers are constantly slapping “world’s fastest” labels onto their latest creations based on individual game benchmarks, while Intel and AMD can both boast the fastest CPUs depending on what applications and tests you quote. And the fact that very few consmuers have the means, or indeed the desire, to test any of these claims for themselves just makes it easier for the big companies to prove anything they like with “facts”.

Taken on good faith the claims about LG’s W2252TE make for good reading, and the company should be applauded for investing in making its products greener. But if manufacturers want their advances to receive the recognition they deserve, a little more information would go an awful long way.