Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 78

Thread: Hardware Review: Inelmatic XF700 Industrial Sunlight Readable Touch Screen Monitor

  1. #11
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by hailrazer View Post
    LOL at that entire posts.

    Look I have no doubt you monitor is a high quality monitor worth a lot of money. And I bet the picture is terrific.

    But the simple fact is the pics in the first post show the truth. A lot of glare that is unacceptable. The Mo-Co-So has none of that glare. You can't see the reflection of everything around you with the Mo-Co-So.

    Why do I think that? Simple , look at the pic. You can clearly see the hand holding the camera. This is a mirror like reflection. It is typical of a non optically bonded touchscreen with no AG.

    Sunlight readable is fine, glare is not acceptable. I will gladly trade the slight contrast loss of AG for no glare.

    See this is a car environment. Having a sunlight readable monitor means nothing if all you will see is the woman sitting in the passenger seat with her bright blonde hair. You need to have no reflection when the sun is shining in the car through the front and side windows. That is when you get reflection and glare with a non optically bonded non AG coated touchscreen.

    You can tell me all you want that your screen doesn't do this but the pics don't lie.

    And I have 4 HD T.V's in my house that costs over $2000 each and they ALL have AG. And the screen in my Yukon is an Avionics screen and guess what...yep AG.

    I'm sure your monitor is great, I just don't want glare and reflection. That's all.

    Please, maybe you haven't used a Mo-Co-So ? It is VERY sunlight readable, more so than most that claim it.
    Look hailrazer, i might not be able to change your opinion even showing you from the basic optics, i see you are happy married to your mo-co-so monitor, congratulations, although you are still checking other sunlight carefully, i wonder if you are really so happy with your current screen. Anyway, bring it to a boat, a truck with big windows, a bus or helicopter, you will surprise.

    What i'm trying to explain you is the concept of AG and why it's not used in professional sunlight readable applications.
    The irregular surface of the AG layer will make any light, coming from any angle, decreases the real contrast of the monitor, making it less readable.

    Let's analyze the picture you classify as "bad":


    The two arrows show the same point in both normal lilliput monitor and the XF700. There is a small reflection on the XF700 because the hand is really bright, exposed directly to the sun light and just in the angle to reflect. Even so, it's still perfectly readable. You can also check the rest of the screen with direct sunlight over it, it doesn't shows any change, keeping the depth and color saturation, that's the difference to mo-co-so monitor.
    I bet, mo-co-so monitor in exactly the same light conditions will show very bad, the light coming from the up-right corner will reflect on the AG and the AG will spread it over the screen, resulting a washed out image, low quality and unreadable. It's due to the haze of the AG layer, depending of the AG pattern, it can be more or less haze.


    An example photo, it's with less light, just a 24W lamp (not even close to the sunlight on the XF700 photo), reflecting over an AG monitor optically bonded, very similar (if not the same) to the mo-co-so.



    The pictures on mo-co-so website shows this effect as well, it looks washed out, not color depth and barely readable at the right-left corner. It shows the AG effect, reducing dramatically the real contrast. And it's a picture taken by themselves, so it's not objective, the XF700 pic is taken by a forum's user.


    About your 4 HD T.V's in your house that costs over $2000, how old are them? Have you tried to watch it with a sunny window near to the TV? I have an LG purchased two years ago at about $2000 and i get mad every afternoon when the sun comes inside...
    Do you think are they sunlight readable? I don't think so, it's a commercial TV.

    As you may know and understand, high tech application is first used in aerospace, military.. after some years comes to the commercial market. You will see how the tendency of high definition TV is glare finish for the next years, or in case very slight AG mixed with other treatments.
    An example, any cockpit monitor uses strengthened glass, which is glare finish, of course it has a layer to manage the reflection, but it's not AG at all.

    I insist, i'm not telling that AG isn't useful in certain cases, but not direct sunlight.

    Last, the monitor market target is professional applications, where reliability is needed and a lilliput may take few months to fail, it's also an important matter for the price.

  2. #12
    Variable Bitrate hailrazer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Columbus, Georgia
    Posts
    366
    You just don't seem to be understanding. The majority if time you are in a car the sunlight shines in and illuminates the interior of the car. With a non optically bonded non AG screen got get a ton of reflection. Ask everyone here they'll say the same thing. With the monitor reviewed above you will have ha lot of reflection period, the pic proves that. That is not acceptable to me or many others.

    And no I am not married to my monitor. If the one reviewed was better at handling reflection I would buy it in a heartbeat, but the level of reflect tion it has makes itunsuitable for me.

    I have laptops with glare surfaces and I can't use them outside or near a window because of the reflection. But my laptop with AG is easy to use in the same situation. And my TVs with AG look great in sunlight but my 42" downstairs with glare is terrible.

    Put AG on that screen and optically bond the touchscreen and I would buy it.

  3. #13
    North of the land of Hey Huns
    Auto Apps:loading...

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Westminster, MD
    Posts
    2,127
    I think what hailrazer is trying to say, is that more color washing is an acceptable compromise for less glare. Glare is enough of an issue in the car, that many of us are willing to take wash out because while it doesn't look as good, it's still very readable whereas if you have a shiny reflection in the screen, the screen will be quite unreadable.

    I'm sure in direct light situations (rather than reflected) this screen would be much easier readable than an AG screen, which is help for for people with convertibles to be sure.
    "stop with the REINSTALLS, what do you think we got some lame-o installer!!!" - mitchjs
    RevFE
    My Shop

  4. #14
    Variable Bitrate hailrazer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Columbus, Georgia
    Posts
    366
    That's exactly my point.

    Also another point. I work in the automobile industry fixing dents in cars . And in ALL the highline automobiles with touchscreen, navigation systems they have AG. EVERYONE of them. Why? Glare is bad in a car environment. This is in Mercedes,Lexus,BMW,etc. I think if a glare screen was better it would be used.

  5. #15
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by malcom2073 View Post
    I think what hailrazer is trying to say, is that more color washing is an acceptable compromise for less glare. Glare is enough of an issue in the car, that many of us are willing to take wash out because while it doesn't look as good, it's still very readable whereas if you have a shiny reflection in the screen, the screen will be quite unreadable.

    I'm sure in direct light situations (rather than reflected) this screen would be much easier readable than an AG screen, which is help for for people with convertibles to be sure.
    Ya, i get it, good explanation, but remember that color wash and low contrast it become just not readable. With AG you don't recognize any reflected shape on the screen, it just become a part of the image, so your eyes will never be able to see the image.
    In a sunlight readable monitor with glare finish, you can see a slight reflection but it's just a background compared to the image picture, you still can see perfectly the image.

    Quote Originally Posted by hailrazer View Post
    That's exactly my point.

    Also another point. I work in the automobile industry fixing dents in cars . And in ALL the highline automobiles with touchscreen, navigation systems they have AG. EVERYONE of them. Why? Glare is bad in a car environment. This is in Mercedes,Lexus,BMW,etc. I think if a glare screen was better it would be used.
    I understand your point. You like more AG because the reflection is diffuse, you don't really see the object reflected on the screen, but don't tell that there isn't reflection, the reflection is just spreaded over the screen.

    The only i can say, the picture you are looking isn't that bad, the reflection is very slight if you see the real, you can ask to the one who made the review. Please Sonicxtacy02, open our eyes... i would like to know your opinion about the reflection issue, maybe some photos with different image and situations would help...

    The car market, many luxurious cars are not using high technology yet, just AG with an special touch panel, and of course never bonded. It takes time to see new technology on cars, but it's coming.
    The major reason car makers use AG instead other ways is price and sometimes just not dared to try new tech until it's working for years. Some are going fast, i have seen even GM models using slight AG plus other technologies (not bonding needed) that looks ok.

    About the bonding, you really like it , but to bond a touch panel to the TFT isn't only optical matter, in fact there are some other ways to get similar result without bonding. It's bonded to avoid the dust to come inside, better impact resistance and much better heat response, that's why is used mainly in aerospace, avionics and military.
    I insist... the XF700 is bonded... specular or diffuse reflection has nothing to do with bonder or not bonded ... you can find bonded monitors not sunreadable too.

    Your TV... you are comparing a normal glare finish TV with a sunlight readable... it's not related. My laptop is also glare finish and i cannot see anything when i work with the screen faced to the window... my desktop monitor is AG and i cannot see anything either...

  6. #16
    Mo' Programming Mo' Problems
    Auto Apps:loading...
    Sonicxtacy02's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    8,166
    Blog Entries
    52
    having only a non-transflective non-bonded lilliput to compare it to.. i'd say my photos dont do it justice. The glare in the photo was nowhere near as prevalent to the naked eye. Some of it may have to do with my aging digital camera taking the photo. The bottom-line to me.. an end-user not versed in optics is when compared to the lilliput, the XF700 is brighter, has far greater contrast, and is easier to read than the lilliput 629.

    I really dont feel its worth a debate because what you're debating is pretty much personal preference. I personally would rather have the glare shown in the photo than a washed out screen with less glare. Someone else may feel entirely different. What cant be disputed however is the fact that the Mp3Car and mo-co-so screens are based on a BASE lilliput monitor, whereas the XF700 is manufactured to perform in unfriendly automotive environments. That HAS to account for something here right?

    Should Mp3car want to do a direct comparison review between all available types of these screens they know i'm more than willing and right down the highway
    mp3Car.com Senior Tech Blogger (Want a product reviewed? Contact me.)
    Find my plugins on the MP3Car App Store!
    Follow Me on Twitter or Facebook
    Live mp3Car Facebook Chat

  7. #17
    Variable Bitrate hailrazer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Columbus, Georgia
    Posts
    366
    Quote Originally Posted by Samse View Post
    The major reason car makers use AG instead other ways is price and sometimes just not dared to try new tech until it's working for years. Some are going fast, i have seen even GM models using slight AG plus other technologies (not bonding needed) that looks ok.
    Nope that just doesn't cut it. We aren't talking about a $10,000 Kia where $500 makes a difference. We're talking $80,000 Lexus and $90,000 Mercedes and Bmw and even $55,000 Yukon Denali's. $500 doesn't make a difference with this clientele. They are charging over $6,000 for the Nav system in the newest Mercedes. If Glare was better or even preferable to the buyers they would use it and charge more. They don't because reflection is a bad thing in the car. When glancing at the nav screen you don't need to be trying to see through reflection to see the screen , to much risk so they go with what is best and safest, AG.

    Quote Originally Posted by Samse View Post
    About the bonding, you really like it , but to bond a touch panel to the TFT isn't only optical matter, in fact there are some other ways to get similar result without bonding. It's bonded to avoid the dust to come inside, better impact resistance and much better heat response, that's why is used mainly in aerospace, avionics and military.
    Once again nope. It's bonded to avoid light refraction. Take two pieces of glass and put them back to back and you get a reflective surface much like how a mirror works. But if you bond them together you lessen the refractive index getting rid of the majority of the reflections and mirror like surface.

    Here's a few quotes from Professional sources for optical bonding
    Optical Bonding seals either a top cover glass or touch screen directly to the face of the display bezel. Our bonding process eliminates the air-gap between the display and the cover glass, vastly reducing reflective light, which causes visual washout of the display image. Optical Bonding also enhances structural integrity by supporting the LCD assembly with the cover glass. The bond maintains perfect display uniformity while providing shock protection, unlimted humidity protection, and elimination of fogging caused by trapped moisture accumulating in typical air-gap assemblies.

    * Optical Bonding provides the best reduction of ambient light washout of any commercially available enhancement technology.
    * The two main reasons for optically bonding a TFT panel to a cover plate are to improve optical performance and durability. By selecting appropriate adhesive that closely matches the index of refraction of the panel and the cover plate, it will thus reduce the number of internal reflecting surfaces that can lead to degradation of optical performance. Providing a durable adhesion between the flat panel and the cover plate improves the displays’ ability to resist shock, vibration and moisture.

    Benefits–Better Viewability in bright ambient conditions

    * Optical bonding reduces the reflection caused by glass or air
    * Reduces unwanted glare effects and mirror images that make the display difficult to read
    Quote Originally Posted by Samse View Post
    Your TV... you are comparing a normal glare finish TV with a sunlight readable... it's not related.
    Then you should not have brought it up. From your earlier post.
    Quote Originally Posted by Samse View Post
    Nowadays, there are some nano-size AG coatings, but even so small they are still reducing the contrast, and worse, it also spread the image beam coming from the TFT, losing picture definition, so the glare finish is better for high grade monitors. Don't tell me the one in your home uses AG, high grade doesn't mean U$800 TV.
    You brought it up and I responded by showing the majority of T.V's have AG. Now just for fun I went to Best Buy this afternoon. Here are the results :
    26" and smaller T.V's --- 90% had AG
    27"-46" T.V's - 75% had AG
    50"-60" T.V's - 75% had AG
    Pc standalone monitors -- 100% had AG
    Notebooks -- 95% had Glossy (Glare) screens.

    So I decided to ask several employees why. You know what they ALL said. People prefer T.V's with no reflection and glare. Hmmmm sounds familiar doesn't it ?

    But as I have said I know your monitor probably looks better contrast/color/brightness wise. But I would rather have NO visible distracting reflections.

    Now if you want to send me one of your monitors I would gladly compare it HONESTLY to the Mo-Co-So. And I will return it when I'm done or I will buy it if it is better. Ido not care who makes a product or how much it costs, I just want the best possible viewing experience when I am driving or a passenger.

  8. #18
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonicxtacy02 View Post
    having only a non-transflective non-bonded lilliput to compare it to.. i'd say my photos dont do it justice. The glare in the photo was nowhere near as prevalent to the naked eye. Some of it may have to do with my aging digital camera taking the photo. The bottom-line to me.. an end-user not versed in optics is when compared to the lilliput, the XF700 is brighter, has far greater contrast, and is easier to read than the lilliput 629.

    I really dont feel its worth a debate because what you're debating is pretty much personal preference. I personally would rather have the glare shown in the photo than a washed out screen with less glare. Someone else may feel entirely different. What cant be disputed however is the fact that the Mp3Car and mo-co-so screens are based on a BASE lilliput monitor, whereas the XF700 is manufactured to perform in unfriendly automotive environments. That HAS to account for something here right?

    Should Mp3car want to do a direct comparison review between all available types of these screens they know i'm more than willing and right down the highway
    That's right, a real comparison would decide definitively, maybe mp3car team can compare to mo-co-so and others.

    Quote Originally Posted by hailrazer View Post
    Nope that just doesn't cut it. We aren't talking about a $10,000 Kia where $500 makes a difference. We're talking $80,000 Lexus and $90,000 Mercedes and Bmw and even $55,000 Yukon Denali's. $500 doesn't make a difference with this clientele. They are charging over $6,000 for the Nav system in the newest Mercedes. If Glare was better or even preferable to the buyers they would use it and charge more. They don't because reflection is a bad thing in the car. When glancing at the nav screen you don't need to be trying to see through reflection to see the screen , to much risk so they go with what is best and safest, AG.
    Hailrazer, i repeat it, Glare finish is just specular finish, polished... and the reflected amount of light for a good treated glare finished screen is lower than an AG...

    A car brand do care the $200, GM, Mercedes or Kia, their material cost isn't that high, it's also research, quality controls and a lot of marketing. What they use is functional solutions, tested over years and with automotive certifications. Some examples, why there isn't many cars (maybe even no one) using multi-touch?
    Also the car development is slow, so you won't see the newest technology screens in a car, it takes 2-3 years to launch a new car model, so probably they are using 2-3 years old tech.

    Quote Originally Posted by hailrazer View Post
    Once again nope. It's bonded to avoid light refraction. Take two pieces of glass and put them back to back and you get a reflective surface much like how a mirror works. But if you bond them together you lessen the refractive index getting rid of the majority of the reflections and mirror like surface.

    Here's a few quotes from Professional sources for optical bonding
    Well, you may read the text again, i said the bonding is not exclusively for optical enhancement.

    Quote Originally Posted by hailrazer View Post
    Now just for fun I went to Best Buy this afternoon. Here are the results :
    26" and smaller T.V's --- 90% had AG
    27"-46" T.V's - 75% had AG
    50"-60" T.V's - 75% had AG
    Pc standalone monitors -- 100% had AG
    Notebooks -- 95% had Glossy (Glare) screens.

    So I decided to ask several employees why. You know what they ALL said. People prefer T.V's with no reflection and glare. Hmmmm sounds familiar doesn't it ?

    But as I have said I know your monitor probably looks better contrast/color/brightness wise. But I would rather have NO visible distracting reflections.
    You must be kidding... don't tell me that you were looking for high grade monitors and arguments for this post asking in Best Buy? Did you meet some purchasing agent of the US defense there? I heard the use to purchase monitors in Best Buy....

    And your question to the employers... you are asking them: what's better, a monitor without glare (what people wrongly know as AG finish) or a monitor with so much glare as a mirror? It's not a question you can ask them, because probably they have never seen a real glare finish sunlight readable monitor yet, they just imagine a monitor with "glare".

    I repeat, the forth time, there are other ways to get a specular (as you call it, mirror like) surface and minimize its reflections, as low as 0.2% , with AG you are lucky if you get 3%, plus the haze (blur like effect) will reduce the contrast.

    There is one interesting observation, why Notebooks are migrating to glare finish? Maybe the notebooks are more like to use in outdoors sometimes? My old HP was also AG... but now everyone, including what sony classify as suitable for outdoors are talking about "glare" finish, check here:
    http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-...ok.2909.0.html


    If you like AG more, no problem, we make monitors with AG too, some customers prefer them, because apparently they deal better with dirty and fingerprints (although they just hide the dirty inside the AG pattern).
    Of course, they know they are paying for it with contrast and color saturation loses. We don't those monitors sunlight readable like mo-co-so does, it's just daylight readable and they have worse optical performance than the XF700 if you analyze it objectively and knowing what's important for the monitor readability, which is contrast and color saturation, just what the human being eye is able to detect.

    Please read a bit about optics instead of visiting Best Buy to make surveys, you will find a monitor without specular glare but contrast 2:1 is barely readable, the US army is requesting min. 6:1 under direct sunlight.

  9. #19
    Vendor - Mo-Co-So
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    237
    OMG there is some serious misunderstanding of optics and transflective technology going on in this thread. I just got back from Vegas/CES and am beat but I couldn't help myself. I have to make some kind of comment. Here are some FACTS
    #1 If the XF700 is optically bonded and reworkable it means that they are using a dry bond not a wet one. Dry bonding is a new technology and any expert will tell you hands down the quality/effect of a wet bond is far superior to that of a dry bond. The only advantage to a dry bond is that it is reworkable if something fails. We have had 1 failure in 18 months, so that is not really a concern for us. We prefer the superior image quality that a wet bond offers.
    #2 It is true that you can not eliminate 100% of all sun glare ever. The sun on a bright day is in excess of 10,000 nits! However with the proper transflective technology, such as AG coatings, polarizers, and optical bonding it is possible to eliminate 99.8% of the glare. A picture is worth a 1000 words so
    http://www.mo-co-so.com/v/~photos/Op...percentage.jpg
    #3 The picture Samse posted of our transflective monitor was just that the transflective version. It WAS NOT the picture of the optically bonded version that we sell. Here is a link that shows 6 different types of the EBY701 side by side.
    http://www.mo-co-so.com/v/~photos/Mo...ts/montage.jpg
    These 6 pics were taken with the monitors exposed to direct sunlight. You can clearly see the loss of contrast that Samse was referring to in the non bonded versions of the monitor, esp on the upper right side of the screen where the sunlight is most intense. On the optically bonded version, bottom right, that loss of contrast is clearly not a factor.
    #4 Despite Samse's claim that bonding has nothing to do with reflection the above links clearly shows that it does.
    #5 Our monitors are used by several large customers including a company that is based in Florida that installs them on yachts that have an average price tag in excess of 10 million dollars, as well as a Canadian and an Italian company that uses them in helicopters and ultra lite planes.
    Samse,
    How can you post a pic of an inferior quality screen and make the claim that it is close to if not the same as the monitor that we sell? You clearly know nothing about the product that we have let alone how we acomplish the superior image that our enhanced monitors provide?
    The pictures in the links have not been altered intentionally. We want to provide accurate pictures in real life lighting conditions to clearly show the diference between the various versions/technologies. We have no problem pointing out that there is some loss of contrast in a standard non bonded transflective monitor. If there was no difference between a more expensive model and a cheaper one what would be the point in buying a more expensive one?

  10. #20
    Variable Bitrate hailrazer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Columbus, Georgia
    Posts
    366
    Quote Originally Posted by Samse View Post
    A car brand do care the $200, GM, Mercedes or Kia, their material cost isn't that high, it's also research, quality controls and a lot of marketing. What they use is functional solutions, tested over years and with automotive certifications. Some examples, why there isn't many cars (maybe even no one) using multi-touch?
    Also the car development is slow, so you won't see the newest technology screens in a car, it takes 2-3 years to launch a new car model, so probably they are using 2-3 years old tech.

    You must be kidding... don't tell me that you were looking for high grade monitors and arguments for this post asking in Best Buy? Did you meet some purchasing agent of the US defense there? I heard the use to purchase monitors in Best Buy....

    And your question to the employers... you are asking them: what's better, a monitor without glare (what people wrongly know as AG finish) or a monitor with so much glare as a mirror? It's not a question you can ask them, because probably they have never seen a real glare finish sunlight readable monitor yet, they just imagine a monitor with "glare".

    There is one interesting observation, why Notebooks are migrating to glare finish? Maybe the notebooks are more like to use in outdoors sometimes? My old HP was also AG... but now everyone, including what sony classify as suitable for outdoors are talking about "glare" finish,

    No Mercedes will not use an inferior product to save $200 or even $500. But they do put what is safest in a car. And a screen that is reflecting images is not safe. They know this hence they use AG.

    I was in BestBuy looking at screens with AG and those without because YOU said that the "High Grade" screens in my home don't use AG. I was proving that 80%-90% of all screens sold right now for homes use AG. THAT'S A FACT !!!

    Why are Notebooks going to Glossy screens. Now that one is simple and it's an undeniable FACt also. PRICE !!! Notebook manufacturers have admitted that the profit margin on laptops have fallen drastically. And Glossy screens are cheaper than AG. A simple Google search shows this. Yet on high end PC monitors they almost all use AG . Hmm why? Because reflection sucks.

    But hey , once again I say ..... Send me one of your screens. I will do at least 20 side by side pics in all light conditions. And I will give a fair unbiased review. I have my Mo-Co-So screen and my 10.4" Avionics screen to compare it to. And when I'm done I will either buy it or send it back.

    Why won't you take me up on that offer ?

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Hardware Review: T-view T92VGA
    By TimmyM in forum The Review Palace
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 03-22-2011, 11:17 AM
  2. $529 Mp3Car Sunlight Readable Monitor
    By Jensen2000 in forum MP3Car Products - store.mp3car.com
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 12-16-2009, 12:52 PM
  3. steering wheel touch screen monitor??
    By thecar-puter in forum LCD/Display
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 07-11-2008, 03:56 PM
  4. any feedback info. on Dynamix 7" VGA Touch Screen TFT ???
    By xtreamvette in forum LCD/Display
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 04-22-2007, 03:19 PM
  5. lillyput--all hype?----long review
    By liquid_smoke in forum LCD/Display
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-21-2003, 10:44 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •