LG 27" Monitor junk? Or am I doing it wrong?

[Sam5281]

Hello

Using an LG E2742 27" monitor with late 2008 macbook pro. Connected by mini display port to DVI adapter - then DVI to HDMI into monitor.

Picture on monitor just lacks everything. Different colors. Poor sharpness.

Is this a poor monitor?

Using for photo editing/photoshop/LR in current state - out of the question.

Please advise

 

[paulrbeers]

Hello

Using an LG E2742 27" monitor with late 2008 macbook pro. Connected by mini display port to DVI adapter - then DVI to HDMI into monitor.

Picture on monitor just lacks everything. Different colors. Poor sharpness.

Is this a poor monitor?

Using for photo editing/photoshop/LR in current state - out of the question.

Please advise

You bought a 1080p 27" monitor. They are crap. Once you go over about 23" you need to up the resolution otherwise you are just looking at giant pixels. You need a 1440p for a decent experience at 27"

 

[Fishrrman]

I disagree with what paulbeers wrote above.

I chose a 27" "mid-rez" (1920x1080) display -purposely- because I DID NOT WANT a "high-rez" (1440p) display. My eyes are aging and I wanted to be able to run the display at it's native resolution, yet still see everything clearly without having to fool with text sizes at all.

I'd suggest that you re-think your cabling setup as mentioned above.

DON'T use HDMI at all.

I'd suggest either displayport-to-DVI, or displayport-to-VGA (YES, VGA!).

I use a Viewsonic 2770 with a late-2012 Mac Mini, connecting with a minidisplayport-to-VGA adapter cable. Everything looks sharp and clear to me, and colors are fine.

Again, get the HDMI "outta there"....

My opinion only.

 

[Saint.Icon]

I disagree with what paulbeers wrote above.

I choose a 27" "mid-rez" (1920x1080) display -purposely- because I DID NOT WANT a "high-rez" (1440p) display. My eyes are aging and I wanted to be able to run the display at it's native resolution, yet still see everything clearly without having to fool with text sizes at all.

I'd suggest that you re-think your cabling setup as mentioned above.

DON'T use HDMI at all.

I'd suggest either displayport-to-DVI, or displayport-to-VGA (YES, VGA!).

I use a Viewsonic 2770 with a late-2012 Mac Mini, connecting with a minidisplayport-to-VGA adapter cable. Everything looks sharp and clear to me, and colors are fine.

Again, get the HDMI "outta there"....

My opinion only.

I second this. While I prefer 1440p as a minimum for 27" screens, I understand the need for other resolutions.

That being said, I hate HDMI for monitor use. Get that crap out of there. Quality, in my opinion, is always lacking with HDMI for monitors. It's one thing hooking up an Xbox or DVD player to a TV. But it's another to use it with a monitor. It's just not the same quality.

 

[Sam5281]

Alright.

So most cost effective way so far to try is my connection. The monitor actually has an auto resolution feature, but not usable through HDMI.

 

[bootz]

Alright.

So most cost effective way so far to try is my connection. The monitor actually has an auto resolution feature, but not usable through HDMI.

So what connections does the monitor have? Why not connect directly to DVI using your mini dp to DVI cable?

 

[pellets007]

BLUF: You're monitor sucks.

You purchased a monitor with a TN panel and pretty bad PPI. While photoeditting isn't impossible, it's not going to be particularly accurate with that type of panel

I don't know why HDMI isn't being recommended. It transmits exactly the same signal as DVI, with conveniences that include audio and a smaller connection. There is no real reason to use on or the other in this instance. Even using both shouldn't be a problem unless the cables are just super long.

In any case, the late 2008 MacBook Pro has a pretty stellar panel, in contrast to the panels that came prior. Don't worry about changing your connection if you're not experiencing any artifacts. The only thing you can do is calibrate your monitor, which doesn't help much with accuracy.

 

[phositadc]

I don't know why HDMI isn't being recommended. It transmits exactly the same signal as DVI, with conveniences that include audio and a smaller connection. There is no real reason to use on or the other in this instance. Even using both shouldn't be a problem unless the cables are just super long.

Exactly my thought. Absolutely nothing wrong with HDMI. The problem Is low res on a big screen, relatively speaking, and thus the issues with PQ. HDMI is not the problem.

 

[FreakinEurekan]

Is this a poor monitor?

Using for photo editing/photoshop/LR

For that purpose, it's a poor choice. It's a TN panel; you want IPS. Anything under around 100 pixels per inch is going to be pretty fuzzy/grainy; 1920x1080 at 27" is only 82ppi. For 1920x1080 stick to a 20" or so panel; if you need 27" go for a 2560x1440 resolution.

 

[thekev]

My question would be how serious is your editing? Does it need to be completely consistent through a specific workflow? If so that will require more than just a display to be set up correctly. If you're just looking for something with respectable color, you should really read reviews first. The basic essential items are a display with good viewing angles and uniformity that conforms as closely as possible to a D65 white, and preferably one that isn't excessively bright yet retains strong shadow detail. Excessive brightness influences people to make poor choices with regard to aesthetics.

 

[Sam5281]

BLUF: You're monitor sucks.

You purchased a monitor with a TN panel and pretty bad PPI. While photoeditting isn't impossible, it's not going to be particularly accurate with that type of panel

I don't know why HDMI isn't being recommended. It transmits exactly the same signal as DVI, with conveniences that include audio and a smaller connection. There is no real reason to use on or the other in this instance. Even using both shouldn't be a problem unless the cables are just super long.

In any case, the late 2008 MacBook Pro has a pretty stellar panel, in contrast to the panels that came prior. Don't worry about changing your connection if you're not experiencing any artifacts. The only thing you can do is calibrate your monitor, which doesn't help much with accuracy.

You are right. Just read an article stating that DVI is going to be same quality as HDMI, so I'm out of luck in that aspect.

For that purpose, it's a poor choice. It's a TN panel; you want IPS. Anything under around 100 pixels per inch is going to be pretty fuzzy/grainy; 1920x1080 at 27" is only 82ppi. For 1920x1080 stick to a 20" or so panel; if you need 27" go for a 2560x1440 resolution.

Lets be honest here - it's not a very expensive monitor (I get that). Was purchased at time well before I was shooting and editing photos as much as I am now. That being said, I'm very new to the tech side of things, when it comes to computers/monitors. (It's amazing how much knowledge is on this forum)

Any help would be appreciated.

My question would be how serious is your editing? Does it need to be completely consistent through a specific workflow? If so that will require more than just a display to be set up correctly. If you're just looking for something with respectable color, you should really read reviews first. The basic essential items are a display with good viewing angles and uniformity that conforms as closely as possible to a D65 white, and preferably one that isn't excessively bright yet retains strong shadow detail. Excessive brightness influences people to make poor choices with regard to aesthetics.

I am an amateur photographer- IE: I don't get paid for my work (yet).

Any help on monitor choices would be great

 

[Altemose]

You are right. Just read an article stating that DVI is going to be same quality as HDMI, so I'm out of luck in that aspect.







Lets be honest here - it's not a very expensive monitor (I get that). Was purchased at time well before I was shooting and editing photos as much as I am now. That being said, I'm very new to the tech side of things, when it comes to computers/monitors. (It's amazing how much knowledge is on this forum)



Any help would be appreciated.







I am an amateur photographer- IE: I don't get paid for my work (yet).



Any help on monitor choices would be great

Get a good quality adapter from Apple and a decent DVI cable. The results may be shocking. My TV which has the same resolution is driven by DVI or HDMI. The picture is worlds better by using DVI off my workstation (PowerMac G5).

 

[Sam5281]

Get a good quality adapter from Apple and a decent DVI cable. The results may be shocking. My TV which has the same resolution is driven by DVI or HDMI. The picture is worlds better by using DVI off my workstation (PowerMac G5).

I am using an Apple mini display port to DVI adapter

Will try a DVI-D to DVI-D cable to monitor and see if it makes the difference

Other connection on the monitor is "D-SUB" which I can use to VGA - but don't think thats better quality?

 

[beavo451]

Any help would be appreciated.

Sell it and buy a new monitor. Some suggestions:

Dell P2414H
Dell U2414H
Asus PB238Q
Asus PA238Q

Asus PB278Q
Dell U2713HM

 

[Sam5281]

Sell it and buy a new monitor. Some suggestions:

Dell P2414H
Dell U2414H
Asus PB238Q
Asus PA238Q

Asus PB278Q
Dell U2713HM

The more I read, the more I think this is the way to go for my case.

Main concern w/ upgrading to high quality monitor: will current graphic card support it to it's best capacity? (Nvidia Geforce 9400m 256 mb graphics)

Of monitors you mentioned Dell U2713 looks good as does the Dell U3011

Should Apple Cinema not even be considered?

 

[thekev]

The more I read, the more I think this is the way to go for my case.

Main concern w/ upgrading to high quality monitor: will current graphic card support it to it's best capacity? (Nvidia Geforce 9400m 256 mb graphics)

Of monitors you mentioned Dell U2713 looks good as does the Dell U3011

Should Apple Cinema not even be considered?

Apple Cinemas aren't great relative to their price. Assuming we're talking about the 27", when you go toward $1000 for a display, there are better options (NEC comes to mind in spite of their buggy software). These things all drift over time, so used ones aren't the best option for a photographer. At high hour counts the drift gets much worse, which is typical. There are ways of estimating the number of hours, but they are very much ballpark methods. I also wouldn't touch the older aluminum ones at this point. I cannot confirm the maximum resolution supported by that model, but I suspect it's 2560x1600.

I am an amateur photographer- IE: I don't get paid for my work (yet).

Any help on monitor choices would be great

Let me give this one some thought. My own preferences in terms of what I think you would find ideal might not be considered cost effective. I want to point out that what you see on screen isn't always what you'll see when printed, but if the screen isn't terrible, it should be close enough. A little advice from me would be that these things shift over time. Cheaper ones are worse, so when it's not in use, make sure you turn it off. If you're going to do color correction, give it around 30 minutes to warm up. That way it's stable and won't cause your judgement on later images to differ from that on earlier ones. If possible maintain consistent lighting. Very low light is the best (in non-quantitative terms), but it's also the least pleasant for most people.

 

[Sam5281]

Apple Cinemas aren't great relative to their price. Assuming we're talking about the 27", when you go toward $1000 for a display, there are better options (NEC comes to mind in spite of their buggy software). These things all drift over time, so used ones aren't the best option for a photographer. At high hour counts the drift gets much worse, which is typical. There are ways of estimating the number of hours, but they are very much ballpark methods. I also wouldn't touch the older aluminum ones at this point. I cannot confirm the maximum resolution supported by that model, but I suspect it's 2560x1600.

From what I've gathered: 2560x1440 - on TB - which is same as cinema.

The bigger question stems from: is my current graphic card going to support

if NO- then I need to start looking into investing in a new mac

 

[thekev]

From what I've gathered: 2560x1440 - on TB - which is same as cinema.

The bigger question stems from: is my current graphic card going to support

if NO- then I need to start looking into investing in a new mac

Huh? That's what I was looking up. I couldn't find anything official, but it looks like it. If the port is mini displayport, you are fine. I am almost certain the thing supports it. I just wanted to find official documentation as far as max resolution. This forum does generate a lot of clueless nonsense related to gpus, so some skepticism is required.

 

[Sam5281]

By "model" I thought you were referring to apple cinema display (my mistake)

 

[Altemose]

I am using an Apple mini display port to DVI adapter

Will try a DVI-D to DVI-D cable to monitor and see if it makes the difference

Other connection on the monitor is "D-SUB" which I can use to VGA - but don't think thats better quality?

Use the MiniDisplay Port to DVI and the DVI to DVI cable. Should work well!

 

[Sam5281]

Huh? That's what I was looking up. I couldn't find anything official, but it looks like it. If the port is mini displayport, you are fine. I am almost certain the thing supports it. I just wanted to find official documentation as far as max resolution. This forum does generate a lot of clueless nonsense related to gpus, so some skepticism is required.

According to search "You will not get full resolution with mini display port to DVI. DVI is limited to 1920x1200 or something similar."

 

[FreakinEurekan]

According to search "You will not get full resolution with mini display port to DVI. DVI is limited to 1920x1200 or something similar."

You need a Dual Link DVI adapter: http://store.apple.com/us/product/MB571Z/A/

Try to buy a display with DisplayPort built in, it'll save you needing that $99 adapter

 

[thekev]

According to search "You will not get full resolution with mini display port to DVI. DVI is limited to 1920x1200 or something similar."

Oh right. I was confused about what port you had. Above 1920x1200, the only way to do it was dual link dvi. That's typically a $100 cable and isn't applicable to notebooks as they typically have only a single port. You mentioned mini displayport, which is why I was confused. In general I don't recommend long strings of adapters. I tend to look at monoprice for cables that adapt the closest connector type on the display to whatever is supported by my machine. Something like this would be a nice choice, but it's slightly expensive. They're also optimized for brighter settings than I would prefer. This is more advice for later. If you keep an eye on NEC, they're often a bargain if you buy them kind of around the half life of the current generation. In a year that one might cost $600 new. New models come out. Price goes back up. I suspect 4K will also be a beautiful option once that stabilizes. If you're looking for something to get you through today, does it have to be 27"? It's probably easier to find a decent 24" display on a budget.

Come to think of it I'm still confused. Is there a displayport port on your computer? If so do not convert to DVI or anything else unless the display itself uses DVI. If it uses regular displayport, get a displayport to mini displayport cable and do not use any other combination of adapters. Adapters fail more often than single cable solutions, and they cost more. It's a bad combination.

 

[FreakinEurekan]

Oh right. I was confused about what port you had. Above 1920x1200, the only way to do it was dual link dvi. That's typically a $100 cable and isn't applicable to notebooks as they typically have only a single port. ...
Come to think of it I'm still confused. Is there a displayport port on your computer?

His Late 2008 MacBook Pro would have Mini DisplayPort. The Dual-Link DVI adapter works fine; it needs one Mini DisplayPort socket and one USB socket (for power). But as you & I both recommended - best to get a display with DisplayPort capability built-in rather than one with only DVI.

 

[thekev]

His Late 2008 MacBook Pro would have Mini DisplayPort. The Dual-Link DVI adapter works fine; it needs one Mini DisplayPort socket and one USB socket (for power). But as you & I both recommended - best to get a display with DisplayPort capability built-in rather than one with only DVI.

I would agree with that. I'm under the impression that he is budget conscious due to non-professional use, and I think anything that requires a dual link cable at this point is likely to represent a poor value. The timing is definitely unfortunate. People typically use the same display for several years, and I think we'll have some decent options in the 24" 4K realm within a year.