POST A COMMENT

69 Comments

Back to Article

  • SlyNine - Tuesday, May 01, 2012 - link

    CRTs had their own problems. Geometry not lining up, convergence. CRTs were far from perfect.

    Whats sad is manufactures completely abandoned the market. I would probably have been using CRTs up until this 120hz LCD if I actually had an option.
    Reply
  • Dantte - Tuesday, May 01, 2012 - link

    funny you say this. I'm still using a NEC FP2141 CRT as my main gaming monitor, but this is changing as of this week. I just ordered an Asus 27" 120Hz VG278H, I hope it doesnt disappoint. Reply
  • Sabresiberian - Wednesday, May 02, 2012 - link

    Ugh I couldn't stand that monitor. 1920x1080 on a 27" screen? No way, those pixels are the size of a truck.

    That, of course, would probably be a different story at television viewing distance. At monitor distance? Not for me.

    It's hard though; 2560x1440 and 60 Hz, or 1920x1080 at 120Hz? Frankly, I don't like either option very much. I'm used to 60Hz though, so I decided on 2560x1440 and bought a Dell U2711 (a few months before the HP was available). Let me tell you, as someone whose other monitor is a Sony GDM FW900 CRT, I'm very pleased with the U2711.

    In my mind, the picture quality of the best CRTs still is overall better than the best LCDs, and I, like you, can only wonder at where they would be if development had continued. Still, I think the LCD has a better future, so I'm not complaining too much. I just wish they'd get on with building better quality ones (especially better refresh rates).

    The main advantages, of course, are price and size. The Sony FW900 was $2500 back in the early 2000's, and 21-22" was about the limit, and it's hard for me to imagine we could have a high quality 27" or 30" CRT at a price I could afford (not to mention the weight of such a beast!). In a way, it was fortuitous that the CRT industry pretty much died, because I probably would never have been able to buy an FW900 otherwise. (I was able to get mine for about $700, refurbished and with a one year warranty, about 3 years ago.)

    Size is a big factor, for me, and the reason I won't buy another CRT, even the fabulous FW900. There are of course other factors. I'm leaning towards a 30" for my next purchase - but frankly, again, I'm not happy with my options. Current 30" monitors have an acceptable pixel pitch, for me, but just barely, and it's really going to stand out since I have the better one in the 27" 2560x1440 format.

    ;)
    Reply
  • Dracusis - Wednesday, May 02, 2012 - link

    I have a Dell WFP2707 which is 27" 1920x1200, the pixel pitch is perfect for me, any smaller and I'd be leaning in too far to read things and wouldn't be able to "see" everything at once. IMO it's a better match than 2560x1440 and it's a lot easier to drive at native res for games - and with all the cheap shader based AA options now you really don't notice the pixels at all. Dot pitch is no bigger than the old 19" 1280x1024 displays. Generally IO'm about 2.5 ft away form my display when using it..

    Also, as a designer, pixels are my stock in trade so I kinda like being able to see them If I lean in close.
    Reply
  • dragonsqrrl - Friday, September 27, 2013 - link

    ...wow Reply
  • IllegalTacos - Monday, May 14, 2012 - link

    I have that monitor and I really like it. The pixels are large, as Sabresiberian said, but personally I am not bothered by it. I went from 60hz to 120hz so I was grinning at the fluid motion of dragging windows around. Since you're probably going to be playing 3D games, I'll just mention it's awesome. If you aren't on the Nvidia 3D forum, here's the link <http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showforum=209&g...
    I'd suggest Crysis 2, Battlefield 3, and Trine 2 for great 3D. The 3D vision forum does have plenty of suggestions though. I hope you enjoy it!

    Also, I didn't get that weird oval effect a lot of people reported. Apparently ASUS fixed that with the new batches, but it's still best to keep an eye out for it.
    <http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1653278> Link to the relevant thread.
    Reply
  • DanNeely - Tuesday, May 01, 2012 - link

    Once mass market consumers and professionals abandoned CRTs there weren't enough users left to maintain production lines. Reply
  • Sabresiberian - Wednesday, May 02, 2012 - link

    I think it was the other way around; the industry jumped on the LCD bandwagon and didn't even try to compete with the CRT. The general public was largely lead by the nose to make the change.

    ;)
    Reply
  • cacca - Wednesday, May 02, 2012 - link

    LCD are the biggest Con/Swindle of the latest 15 years.

    So far we are not yet at the same level of the past CRT, you can imagine how crappy were LCDs at that time.

    Basically they blackmailed reviews and created the myth of coolness for the LCD.

    They were indeed thinner and lighter, really god send in this area, but utterly crap and pricey.

    If they had put the same effort for the crt and short neck technologies... well we would had better crt, heavier but with no doubt superior to the LCD we have now.
    Reply
  • JonScaife - Wednesday, May 02, 2012 - link

    I had some nice CRTs considering my budget (Samsung 700IFT and Iiyama VM Pro 454 spring to mind) but I prefer my HP ZR24w now to any CRT I had then - for 1 simple reason - eye strain. I put it down to the flickering on CRTs, even at 100Hz on a 17" screen it would get me after a few hours. For the vast vast majority a "consumer" (i.e. cheap) 17 or 19" flat panel now is a huge leap from the 14 and 15" "consumer" CRTs they've replaced. Geometry was always an issue with CRTs too - and only gets tougher to do the bigger the screen gets. Just try looking at a PC display on a CRT TV, even an HD CRT TV (yes, they made them, I have one!) - the geometry is awful. Good geometry large size CRTs have always been like rocking-horse dung - and were priced accordingly. Reply
  • sviola - Wednesday, May 02, 2012 - link

    If it wasn't for LCDs, probably no one would have monitors/tvs bigger than 30" (and a CRT that size was huge and extremely heavy). Reply
  • DanNeely - Wednesday, May 02, 2012 - link

    Rear projection TVs got into the 50/60" class. Reply
  • Mumrik - Wednesday, May 02, 2012 - link

    And 32" was the standard size for a widescreen TV in the living room around here... Reply
  • ctbaars - Wednesday, May 02, 2012 - link

    I remember the same kind of argument when we went from Vinyl to CD :/ I'm not quite buying it. Reply
  • Mumrik - Wednesday, May 02, 2012 - link

    I'm still using a Sony FW900.

    To be honest, it's not in tip-top shape anymore - the picture could be sharper. I had hoped to be able to use it until OLED arrived in the mainstream (as it was supposed to do YEARS ago). At this point I'm starting to consider 24-27" IPS panels.
    Reply
  • JohnMD1022 - Wednesday, May 02, 2012 - link

    My NEC Multisync FE992 still performs flawlessly.

    When it begins to fail, I'll replace it.

    Meanwhile, with each passing day, LCD technology improves and prices drop. :)
    Reply
  • futrtrubl - Tuesday, May 01, 2012 - link

    The numbers seem off for a couple of the displays with their minimum brightness settings drawing MORE power. That's the two NECs, the Apple and a Dell and BenQ. Reply
  • JarredWalton - Tuesday, May 01, 2012 - link

    You are correct, sir! I've updated the chart so that the colors and min/max values are now correct. Reply
  • cheinonen - Tuesday, May 01, 2012 - link

    Sorry about that, they got flipped in a version of the spreadsheet I use for the numbers and I thought they were fixed in the most recent one, but I'll update that again so it doesn't happen next time. Reply
  • asasa45454 - Tuesday, May 01, 2012 - link

    Are you going to review them? They have input lag ~10ms, 2560x1440. Reply
  • JarredWalton - Tuesday, May 01, 2012 - link

    Brian Klug is working on a review I believe. Stay tuned.... Reply
  • B3an - Wednesday, May 02, 2012 - link

    Next time can you or Brian in his future review mention the fact that these are 16:10 junk, instead of 16:9, and point out why this is so stupid for the area these monitors are aimed at (they should be 2560x1600 res!). Many of which will be people that work in some area of design and would benefit from extra pixels.

    These things are not for watching movies. For almost anything else including basic things like viewing this very web page, the extra vertical pixels are better.
    Reply
  • ectoplasmosis - Wednesday, May 02, 2012 - link

    If you're going to go on a bizarre rant, at least make sure you've got your aspect ratios the right way round. Reply
  • theoryzero - Tuesday, May 01, 2012 - link

    NEC's page mentions "Rapid Response" or "Response Improve" feature that can be enabled using the MultiProfiler software. Does that feature help with the processing lag? Reply
  • Senti - Tuesday, May 01, 2012 - link

    It doesn't. It enables panel overdrive. With it it becomes one of the fastest IPS panels I've seen, but you also get quite bad overdrive artifacts. Reply
  • weiln12 - Tuesday, May 01, 2012 - link

    You mention for gaming the HP is the best bet, yet it's worse in lag than the Apple 27". From my quick perusal of the charts appeared to be worse in most categories for color reproduction and everything else.

    The prices don't seem that far off either based on a cursory Google search of the HP ZR2740w and Apple's given prices.

    Could you mind clarifying why the HP is the best bet for gaming, is there something I'm missing?
    Reply
  • cheinonen - Tuesday, May 01, 2012 - link

    The Apple only works with Thunderbolt, so that's not going to be an option for most gamers, who still use a PC and not a Mac. The HP is incredibly close to the Apple in most numbers, and the lag measurement used for the HP is far more accurate than the one used for the Apple, so they could be closer than the charts indicate. Reply
  • ectoplasmosis - Wednesday, May 02, 2012 - link

    The Thunderbolt version isn't the only one available.

    I'm using a displayport 27" Cinema Display connected to both a PC (DVI) and Mac Pro (mDP) via an mDP KVM switch. By far the best screen I've ever laid eyes on, and crystal-clear with no horrible murky anti-glare coating like almost every other 2560x1440 27" screen.
    Reply
  • AeroWB - Wednesday, May 02, 2012 - link

    The high gloss display of Apple screen may look fancy and give more punch to the colors, but it can be extremely annoying depending on the room lighting and even in a medium lit room high gloss displays are extremely bad when displaying dark content, as you will see your own reflexion more clearly then the content being displayed.

    Glossy displays do work well in very dark rooms, but I doubt it is good to work in a dark room and stare into a big light. I do not think it is a coincidence that all professional displays and laptops are non-gloss and in general getting a non-gloss display is the safer option. If color is important glossy screens are a very bad option even if you're careful with the room lighting. it seems to me gloss is so prevalent in the consumer space as it is cheaper to built and looks fancier when displaying bright content. Though it must be said those non-glare coatings do have some influence on the brightness and sharpness of the display though after using my PA241W for about a year I am very happy I did not get the glossy Apple display (which a friend of mine has)
    Reply
  • ectoplasmosis - Wednesday, May 02, 2012 - link

    The room my ACD's in is far from dark, but is arranged so that screen reflections are a complete non-issue, even with darker content.

    If you've got control over your environment and lighting then a glossy screen, like you say, gives better contrast, saturation and colour accuracy than an equivalent panel with fuzzy anti-glare coating.

    I know which one I prefer, and it's not about looking "fancy" in the least.
    Reply
  • doubledeej - Wednesday, May 02, 2012 - link

    I'm still not able to figure out why people buy the Apple LCDs... displays from other manufacturers in the same price range have far better specs. If you compare performance to price, the Apple options are at the bottom of the list. They really aren't that good. Sure, they're great compared to a $150 Dell, but next to other options in the 27" size they don't hold up very well. Reply
  • ectoplasmosis - Wednesday, May 02, 2012 - link

    They use the same panel as all the other 27" 2560x1440 screens (as far as I'm aware, LG is the only manufacturer making such panels).

    Apart from backlighting and features, the rest of the differentiation is in the panel manufacturing variance.

    I bought mine because it's glossy (huge bonus for me), it looks fantastic and comes with serviceable speakers and a webcam built-in. And the after-sales service means if it goes tits up I can drive 5 minutes down the road and get an instant exchange.

    All those things are worth the premium in my eyes.
    Reply
  • André - Wednesday, May 02, 2012 - link

    It works fine with Mini-DisplayPort to adapters.

    Not sure where you got the "only works with Thunderbolt" from though.
    Reply
  • tzhu07 - Tuesday, May 01, 2012 - link

    I've owned the PA271W for over a year now and it's been very great to me. I work as a web developer/designer and everything looks sharp and accurate. Surprised Anandtech just got around to showcasing the monitor. Reply
  • bishop2020 - Tuesday, May 01, 2012 - link

    You guys have reviewed the Dell U2711 in the past and it strikes me as the most comparable monitor to the NEC, curious why it would be omitted from the comparison tables while a bunch of smaller panels were included. Reply
  • InterClaw - Wednesday, May 02, 2012 - link

    That, and the Dell U3011 as well is strangely missing now. Reply
  • cheinonen - Wednesday, May 02, 2012 - link

    Once I get past 15 results in the data, it becomes too hard to read the results. I've been favoring the more recent results since they are done using the i1Pro and not the i1Display2, and so the results are more accurate and more directly comparable. I will see if I can pull in the 27" and 30" numbers for the past displays to replace those that are in there this week. Reply
  • bishop2020 - Wednesday, May 02, 2012 - link

    Thanks, looking forward to seeing the numbers side-by-side. In my opinion anytime I see reviews for 2560 res monitors I see them as an entirely different class of monitor and the price especially seems to segregate it from everything else as well. I could see throwing in 1 or 2 of the higher-rated 1920 screens for reference but anyone whose even considering spending $700-$1200 for a monitor probably knows they want a 2560 res monitor for a reason and isn't considering a 1920 at all so the other numbers just add noise to the data they're really looking for. Thanks again :) Reply
  • Veni - Tuesday, May 01, 2012 - link

    The NEC's built in KVM/USB switch functionality is very intriguing to me. Does anyone know of any cheaper monitors which have the ability to switch the USB uplink based on the display input? Reply
  • tygrus - Tuesday, May 01, 2012 - link

    ".. for my use .."

    Reviews like this should have multiple headings with sections targeted at a different audience. It's OK to include your 'general home use' self but don't forget that there may be others who do graphical/multimedia work or hobby that appreciate some of the more advanced features. Let the reader choose which target audience they are and focus on a different conclusion. Don't discount just because it's not recommended for gamers.
    Reply
  • cheinonen - Tuesday, May 01, 2012 - link

    And that's why in the conclusion I have a section that reads "If you are a design professional who needs accurate color more than anything else, and things like display uniformity and a wider gamut are of high importance, then you are the target for the NEC. You already know you might need this, which features you can’t live without, and are willing to pay the extra price."

    I'm not discounting it because of my use or because I'm not a hard core gamer, I'm drawing the conclusion that if you aren't in that target audience that I already covered in the conclusion, there are other monitors that likely offer a better price/performance ratio for you, or in the case of gaming that offer better performance overall. I tried to cover in depth all of the extra features that design industry professionals would use, as that is the target for the monitor, but also cover it for a general audience as well.
    Reply
  • analogworm - Wednesday, May 02, 2012 - link

    Chris,

    In this review you state Nec as being top of the line for graphics proffessionals. Ofcourse your review fully supports this statement, and i have no doubt the nec does a wonderful job. However i miss comparisons to the EIZO monitors, as ive been thought EIZO is top of the line for graphical use, albeit a wee bit more expensive. Could you review one of eizo's monitors for comparison? Id very much appreciate it.

    kind regards,
    Analogworm
    Reply
  • Origin32 - Wednesday, May 02, 2012 - link

    How I wish some manufacturer would come along with a 120Hz 2560x1440 monitor already. It's not that not having 3D is such a dealbreaker, but it is awesome and the 120Hz is actually useful in 2D FPSs too. It noticeably improved my performance when I got my Acer GD245HQ 18 months ago.
    So going back to 60Hz really wouldn't be much of an upgrade, even if I got more pixels.

    Oh, and I know 120 is going to be expensive. But I'm more than willing to sell my mother for one.
    Reply
  • AeroWB - Wednesday, May 02, 2012 - link

    I have an PA241W, which closely resembles the PA271W. My main problem with it is the mediocre black-levels. The black-levels are fine if its standing in an well lit office though. At home the room often isn't so well lit and then it is fairly obvious that the blacks are worse then of the older IPS NEC screens like the 2090UXi which I use as a second monitor. This difference is because the newer models do not use the A-TW polarizer film. According to NEC the polarizer film was dropped as it increased the color-shift that occurs when looking at the display from the side.
    What I love about he unit is the great color gamut which can make pictures more alive, and when working with sRGB I only have to press one button on the monitor to switch between color-modes.
    The portrait mode is great option which I do use regularly.
    Next to that I do use it to game and while I do not play the fastest FPS games, anything non-FPS is not a problem and I even play Battlefield 3 without any problems, maybe the 24" model has a slightly lower input lag then the 27" though the 24" does also have an input lag that is higher then most other displays, so the difference can't be big.
    Reply
  • MrSpadge - Wednesday, May 02, 2012 - link

    The first paragraphs, which show up in the front page, may be a nice general introduction, but say absolutely nothing about the product - not good for the front page. Reply
  • svojoe - Wednesday, May 02, 2012 - link

    I'm curious why they used CFL's? I personally feel that the decent LED back light put out a more even and brighter color than the CFL's. At half the power consumption. 110Watts is more draw than my whole computer!

    I would have otherwise been very interested in this!
    Reply
  • DanNeely - Wednesday, May 02, 2012 - link

    The best CFLs still have wider gamut and lower deltaE than the best LED backlights. Although other people buy them, the 2560 monitor market in general and NEC (among others) in particular are targetting profesional graphics/image/video editing customers for whom color quality is a much larger priority than saving $20/year on their power bill. Reply
  • kmmatney - Wednesday, May 02, 2012 - link

    Overall, it seems like the Apple 27" is better - and cheaper even factoring in the $30 DVI adapter, while coming close to it in color quality. Reply
  • cheinonen - Thursday, May 03, 2012 - link

    With any of the 27" panels tested so far you could say they are "close" to the NEC, but for some people they need that extra bit of quality and uniformity for their work, irregardless of cost. It costs a lot more to get it since it takes a lot more work and engineering, but for some people it's a necessity. Reply
  • nurfe - Thursday, May 03, 2012 - link

    Except that Apple won't support 14 bit lookup-tables, hardware calibration, and it won't electronically correct uniformity and colour variation problems. If nothing I mentioned matters to you, go for something cheap. If you care about it, you'll get a NEC, EIZO or Quato. Reply
  • B3an - Wednesday, May 02, 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.
    Reply
  • TegiriNenashi - Wednesday, May 02, 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... Reply
  • ggathagan - Wednesday, May 02, 2012 - link

    Uh.. you got it backwards, Skippy.

    2560x1440 *is* 16:9
    2560x1600 is 16:10
    Reply
  • ozmia - Wednesday, May 02, 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.
    Reply
  • cheinonen - Thursday, May 03, 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. Reply
  • nurfe - Thursday, May 03, 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. Reply
  • bishop2020 - Thursday, May 03, 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.
    Reply
  • nurfe - Friday, May 04, 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.
    Reply
  • 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.
    Reply
  • xKeGSx - Wednesday, May 02, 2012 - link

    Any word on the VA278q that was announced at CES 2012? Reply
  • Oxford Guy - Wednesday, May 02, 2012 - link

    I have three bones to pick:

    1. The sRGB color space is important, more important than AdobeRGB for most users, and yet Anandtech's monitor reviews always fail to provide information about sRGB coverage and use AdobeRGB as the baseline for comparison.

    2. The chart heading calling monitor gamut "color quality" is misleading, especially when dealing with wide-gamut monitors that have non-functioning sRGB modes -- leading to overly saturated color when viewing sRGB content. For many users, such a monitor would be considered to have inferior color "quality". Also, for sRGB content, a standard gamut monitor with good uniformity and good black level would have good "color quality" when used with sRGB content—potentially better than a wide-gamut monitor with poor black level. Change it to "color range", "gamut", or something else that doesn't give the impression that the colors the monitor is capable of representing are somehow better simply because there are more of them.

    3. There is still no mention of PWM flicker in the article, or whether or not this model uses PWM or constant control.
    Reply
  • Oxford Guy - Wednesday, May 02, 2012 - link

    The other problem with "color quality" as a heading is that it doesn't reflect banding, noise, and other issues related to FRC dithering, the lack of a hardware LUT, broken hardware firmware (as was documented in the Dell U2410 by prad.de -- user mode wasn't working properly), and such. Reply
  • bjnicholls - Wednesday, November 28, 2012 - link

    sRGB is a small subset of ARGB. Any wide gamut display used with proper color managed workflow can accurately display the thin, weak color gruel that is sRGB.

    sRGB is the "least common denominator" color space and the only thing important about it is knowing how to deliver images optimized for sRGB with as few negative effects as possible.
    Reply
  • beebbeeb - Wednesday, May 02, 2012 - link

    A review of any "professional" grade monitor would not be complete without benching it against the gold standard : Eizo. On reviewing Anandtech archive the last review of an Eizo was in 2006, a shootout involving Eizo L997, which duly came out as the champ. On the strength of that review, I bought one for nearly US$2,000 in 2006, used for viewing CAD drawings. Look forward to a "hottubbing" of the NEC, Eizo and other professional monitors. Reply
  • appliance5000 - Wednesday, January 02, 2013 - link

    I think NEC is as much a gold standard as Eizo - has that ever been a question. Reply
  • UrQuan3 - Thursday, May 03, 2012 - link

    You know, the funny thing is I *HATE* dimming backlights. It's like a car that adjusts the volume based on how fast you're going. I'm sure it makes benchmarks give better numbers, but it's really unplesant to use.

    The backlight on my laptop changes based on how much white there is on the screen. The effect is that everytime I open a menu, all the colors on the screen change. It's implemented in the Sandybridge drivers and cannot be turned off. The only way to prevent it is to run the screen at full brightness. That seems to disable the dimming.
    Reply
  • seapeople - Saturday, May 05, 2012 - link

    FWIW, I hate it when cars DON'T have auto volume based on the speed you're going. What sounds appropriate at 70 on the highway is absolutely blasting when you come to a stop. Don't understand what you'd have against it. Reply
  • bobbozzo - Monday, May 07, 2012 - link

    Yeah, the 'dynamic contrast' on my Samsung 2343BWX is unbearable for PC work. Fortunately it is easy to turn off. Reply
  • mtfreitasf - Thursday, May 03, 2012 - link

    I have been following your monitor reviews for a while but have never heard about Eizo which has a name in the pro market. Is there an explanation for this omission? Yours. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now