NEC PA271W - When Accuracy and Consistency Matter
by Chris Heinonen on May 1, 2012 1:55 PM ESTNEC PA271W - Display Uniformity
As we’ve mentioned, NEC goes to great lengths with their PA271W display to make it as uniform as possible. With the sacrifices in maximum light output we hope that we will see a measurable difference on the NEC in both brightness and color uniformity.
The brightness uniformity chart shows results that are far and away the best I have measured to date. The total deviation from the maximum to the minimum value is only 10 nits, and we are used to seeing a swing of 30 or even more nits on this test. The average deviation is only 1.66%, so this is a really fantastic result showing that NEC has managed to engineer a more uniformly bright panel than anyone else.
Measuring the black uniformity is harder, as we have no 200 nits target that the white uniformity has. In this case we wind up with an average black level of 0.35 nits, but a higher standard deviation of 18.7%. The issues fall in the upper-right area of the screen which also had the brightest areas in the white uniformity testing, so there might be a little more light leakage coming in from that area of the panel it seems. Note that this non-uniformity will likely vary by panel as well. Given that the panel is uniformly lit, and that affects the color accuracy to a great deal, I would expect the panel to have a fairly consistent dE across the display.
The NEC delivers here again. We wind up with average and median dE values of 1.84 and 1.81, and a standard deviation of only 0.27 dE. The upper right corner seems to have a bit of an issue again, likely due to that lighting uniformity issue, but the rest of the panel is remarkably close together. The colors are all uniform in error across the screen and the issue seems to be a slight rise in grayscale error as you move away from the center. Compared to any other panel I have reviewed, the NEC is far more uniform and will exhibit less of a color shift across the unit, which is important on a screen this size. It still isn’t perfect by any means, but it’s better than anything else I have tested.
I also realized with this review that the vertical axis here was shifting between each review, so I’m going to keep this at 8 for this review, and then see going forward if that is correct. This will make it easier to compare across different displays.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
69 Comments
View All Comments
B3an - Wednesday, May 2, 2012 - link
2560x1440 instead of 2560x1600 on a high end LCD? Disgraceful. Should be 16:9 ratio!Most people by far will be using this for colour important work, graphic design and so on, not for watching fucking movies. Those extra vertical pixels are important, not to mention better for just about anything else, including viewing web pages.
TegiriNenashi - Wednesday, May 2, 2012 - link
The price for 2560x1600 is insane, even for ebay imports from Korea. No matter how badly ones love tall monitors it is hard to justify spending $1000 vs $350 for 11% increase in screen space. Now that 4K aka QuadHD is on horizon, it's much better strategy to shell small amount and upgrade to 4K later. It is sad that 16:10 and taller AR doesn't seem to be coming back...ggathagan - Wednesday, May 2, 2012 - link
Uh.. you got it backwards, Skippy.2560x1440 *is* 16:9
2560x1600 is 16:10
ozmia - Wednesday, May 2, 2012 - link
I like how this review seems to utterly ignore Dell's U2711? It not only has exceptional colour accuracy straight out of the box in the factory configured modes, but very respectable input lag for a 27" screen, and apart from work, I use it for games and it is fantastic.I don't think you have been particularly non-biased, Chris, and this review has a strong wiff of the favouritism.
The U2711 is probably superior to the HP in most ways bar input lag, yet it does not even get a look in. Very poor indeed.
cheinonen - Thursday, May 3, 2012 - link
Someone else wrote the U2711 review, and I've never had the opportunity to use one myself. Any comparisons I make between the two would only be based on my reading of reviews of the display and not from actual use, which is why I didn't mention it.nurfe - Thursday, May 3, 2012 - link
Did you read the review? The two monitors are in two completely different classes. NEC has a 14 bit lookup-table, hardware calibration, electronically corrects uniformity and colour distribution problems etc. The Dell is a normal ISP office monitor.bishop2020 - Thursday, May 3, 2012 - link
I've read both this review and the earlier U2711 review that Anandtech did and would disagree that they aren't comparable.Uncalibrated DE - Dell 2.24, NEC 7.07.
Calibrated DE - Dell 1.06, NEC 1.1.
AdobeRGB - Dell 96%, NEC 106%.
I'm not saying the NEC isn't a better monitor, I actually wholly agree with you on that point, but to say it's in a different class and not worth comparison seems a tad elitist. Many professionals don't work in AdobeRGB (see http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/adobe-rgb.htm) and many don't have access to calibration equipment so a lower shipping DE may be something they're more interested in.
As someone who uses a professional 27" monitor daily I have no problem lumping the Dell & HP in with the NEC & Eizos of the world if only for additional data points even if I don't expect them to come out on top (though I make no assumptions that they can't be superior). The requirements you or I might put on a monitor don't necessarily apply to everyone and seeing the comparisons helps people make informed decisions. That said, I respect the author's decision not to include any direct comparison due to lack of first-hand experience in reviewing the Dell.
nurfe - Friday, May 4, 2012 - link
But that's entirely my point. Using a professional monitor without setting it up correctly, and wihout taking full advantage of its features doesn't make any sense. Of course you'll get similar result buying something else, like a Dell, since you're ignoring the premium features you just paid for.Thus, I very much diasgree that finding the common lowest denominator is ground for a comparison.
bjnicholls - Wednesday, November 28, 2012 - link
OMG, Ken Rockwell on displays? Next I'll see him referenced as an expert on toaster ovens.A professional who isn't provided or can't afford calibration tools isn't a very valuable or valued professional. You need wide gamut if you design for print. But even more, you need a display that has color and luminance uniformity so you can view and work with reasonable precision on large images and designs.
I just returned a Dell U3011 display because it had an obvious color shift across a third of the display. And looking at uniform background colors, it had really poor luminance consistency. At least compared to my aging NEC 3090 display.
I was hoping that a Dell would be "good enough" for design and image editing, but I'm back to finding the best buys I can get on NEC displays. The difference is not subtle and if your work requires consistent, accurate color you should at least aspire to a display designed to deliver the performance you need.
It's interesting that people who spend thousands of dollars on cameras and lenses with excellent image capture capability will cheap out on the one most critical tool they need to view and work with those images. It's like having a professional audio studio but listening to the sound via a cheap sound system.
xKeGSx - Wednesday, May 2, 2012 - link
Any word on the VA278q that was announced at CES 2012?