> I have nothing invested in these NEC displays, but still, I fail to
> understand how a viewing angle smaller than 160 or 170° can be seen as
> lacking. I am quite satisfied with my ACD's viewing angle, which is probably
> about 70° (35° left and right of dead center) before a marked shift is
Yes, this can be. But the _specified_ viewing angle of the current ACD
are 170° too. Normally the viewing angle is specified as the angle in
which _a_ picture can still be seen with a contrast ratio of at least
10:1. Of course it's not important if you can view a display from such
an extreme viewing angle, because you'll only see a distorted area
(hope this expression makes sense here, but I think you understand
what I mean) of the screen. The perceived area of the screen is too
small when viewing under such an extreme angle.
The specified viewing angle is _not_ directly describing the color
shift. But in my experience you can estimate that a display with a
specified viewing angle of 170 (at a contrast ration of 10) or better
is worth investigating. Those displays normally are less prone to
color shifts and might be interesting for color critical work.
> Incidentally, the viewing angle of the NEC SpectraView (MultiSync LCD2180WG)
> is listed as 176° Vert., 176° Hor. (88U/88D/88L/88R)@ CR>10. That of the
> Eizo CG220 as 170°, 170° (at contrast ratio of 10:1), which is the same as
> that for the CG210 and CG19.
Yes, and from those data you'd guess that the first one has less color
shift. But it's very interesting actually to compare both 21" displays
regarding color shift side by side. Both displays offer a very good
panel, but you will be surprised how different the tendency for color
shift and contrast change is, when you look at wider viewing angles --
especially in low ambient light. Also you'll discover that the
perceived color shift will be depending of the colors in the picture
(skin tones for example...).
> Can anyone please clarify this confusing set of information? Or lead
> me to a URL that does that?
I think the best is to try to get the chance to see the difference. I
often (have to) rely on measurements, but I always try to _see_ a
display, the files a digital camear is producing, a print or whatever,
because in the end the visual appearance counts.
Speaking of displays there are some aspects you can easily measure,
but others are hard to measure -- one example is the sandy texture of
the 23" panel used in many displays like the BenQ 231W and AFAIK in the
ACD 23" too. So a data sheet can give you an idea if it might be
interesting to look at a specific display, but it can not supersede
your personal judement.