I totally agree that a test of several screens would decrease margine of error. Especially if the screens were of different revisions too. I doubt that would happen though. :(
The biggest margine of error is human perception IMO. People are very adaptive and even sounds that you can hear at once, some don't hear at all. You can get used to almost everything... Then you also have those who refuses to see anything good or bad with the hardware, like the monkeys "hear no evil, say no evil, see no evil". "Selective perception" is the english expression I believe.
Then you have those who are either bought, or biast of other reasons... Am I being paranoid? No, its happening on daily basis... Take a look at
this if you think that big companies are respectable and don't play dirty.
Samsung delivers good products IMO, but they have a VERY "creative" marketing department.... :P
As shown earlier, the Samsung 243T was marketed as a 25 ms panel (
link by Samsung themselves. Their own tests (
PDF datasheet of the LTM240W1L03 panel shows that the 243T uses are 30 ms [17ms Tr+ 13 ms Tf) (and its not the only panel Samsung have done this with...). If you google the 243T, you'll see many claim no ghosting both in reviews and as persons. Almost in the same wording as with the 2405FPW... ;)
Now, the stench of faul play follows to the LTM240M1 panel as the 2405FPW uses. Its marketed as a panel with a contrast of 1000:1 and brightness of 500.
This I found earlier. The domain (WESTECH ELECTRONIC Corporation)has expired, so its probably a matter of time before its removed from google cache... Extremetech also measured the screen at below 700:1(
612:1), so they took 700:1 and 400 cdm2 and sold it as 1000:1 500 cdm2. Did they also do a little response time trick as last time? It looks like it from Toms Hardware's tests.
These are only tip of the iceberg IMO. Every time I check Samsung Datasheet vs. "salessheet" the numbers have been decorated a bit...
Ghosting only matters if you see it or if it disturbes your gameplay. Of course, for some it matters when showing off screen also. Still, I feel that its a bit blown up.
What I feel matters, is that companies and reviewers should be a bit more honest about their numbers and experiences. Granted that reviewers need their extra income and companies don't do charity, there should still be more standards and laws to protect consumers from being screwed by manufacturers "decoration" of specs.
In the spirit of the Olympic Games, I have one message to manufacturers:
"STOP FEEDING YOUR SPECS WITH STEROIDS!" :lol: :lol: :lol: