POST A COMMENT

76 Comments

Back to Article

  • Hulk - Friday, September 27, 2013 - link

    I trust Anandtech reviews but that contrast ratio would be a huge concern of mine if I were dropping $1000 on a monitor. Reply
  • noeldillabough - Friday, September 27, 2013 - link

    I'm using an older 26" version of this at work and its great...so much so that when I work on a different machine I'm grumbling about the difference! Reply
  • coolhardware - Friday, September 27, 2013 - link

    I could not find a 26" (older) version of this monitor, anybody have a model #??? Reply
  • asakharov - Sunday, October 06, 2013 - link

    NEC 2690WUXI Reply
  • Death666Angel - Friday, September 27, 2013 - link

    If you drop 1k on this you need it for the uniformity and color/calibration results, not for high contrast for your movies and games. :) Reply
  • Hulk - Friday, September 27, 2013 - link

    Actually when I do post work for video/photo, lattitude (dynamic range), which is ability to see detail in the darkest and brightest areas is a big deal, as important if not more so than color space and uniformity. A low contrast ratio means that highlights turn into bright blotches and dark areas simply appear crushed.

    I look for contrast ratio first, then color space, and finally uniformity in a monitor for doing work in post. Uniformity and color space are useless if I can't see any detail in the bright and dark areas.
    Reply
  • Senti - Friday, September 27, 2013 - link

    You are absolutely wrong about contrast. Contrast is the ratio of pure white to pure black and nothing else. This has nothing to do with ability to display dark and bright shades. Actually, the reverse is true: VA panels have great contrast and awful dark tones reproduction. I can see the difference between all the shades with my NEC PA241W even though its contrast is quite modest.

    In general, I have to say that displays are definitely not Anandtech's specialization. Not just mine opinion, as I heard several times how disappointed people I know were at the usefulness of such reviews here. Some important points that AT completely missed: 10-bit mode of operation, overdrive errors, refresh rates, impact of different Uniformity setting values.
    Reply
  • Hulk - Friday, September 27, 2013 - link

    No. You are wrong.
    Contrast ratio should be high for a good display.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrast_ratio

    Furthermore, dynamic range and contrast are closely related and a good display should have a contrast ratio of at least 1000:1.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range

    Finally, you might want to read up on this subjest.
    http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/dynamic...
    Reply
  • Gothmoth - Friday, September 27, 2013 - link

    sorry hulk. but you are clueless.

    look at eizo coloredge or quato monitors.
    and don´t argue about something you obviously know not much about.
    enjoy the faked contrast ratio numbers of your gaming monitors and google a few more articles that say nothing about actual display quality .
    Reply
  • Samus - Saturday, September 28, 2013 - link

    Ohh Hulk, throwing wiki links to general topics with no direct data about this monitor (or any other comparison) is fail.

    No where in Contrast Ratio does it say anything along the lines of quality monitors have high contrast ratio or low-end monitors have weak contrast ratio, etc.
    Reply
  • sweenish - Friday, September 27, 2013 - link

    By your own admission, the monitor reviewed is fine as it does have the 1000:1 that you quote for a display being good. I know you say "at least," but that still makes all your complaining useless as this monitor meets your criteria. Reply
  • khanov - Sunday, September 29, 2013 - link

    Hulk fail. :-(
    Hulk mad!
    Reply
  • foxalopex - Friday, September 27, 2013 - link

    Senti - I own this monitor so I can attest that you are right. What's striking about this monitor visually is that at first it doesn't look like it has a lot of contrast. That is the absolute white and absolute black colours are not as extreme as most monitors. At least until you put up a picture or run a movie that has very light and dark scenes. What you end up seeing is a lot of gradients of grey that are not pushed into absolute black or white. The results are amazing compared to what you would see in a normal monitor. Reply
  • Gothmoth - Friday, September 27, 2013 - link

    we have pro eizo and quato monitors here, they are the best for photographers and designers and they have a contrast ratio of .. guess what.... 1000:1

    some noobs think higher contrast ratio numbers and maybe even dynamic contrast makes a monitor better... well they are wrong.
    Reply
  • rabidwombatsquirrel - Saturday, October 26, 2013 - link

    Well higher contrast ratios DO make a monitor better and I can't wait until we get OLED tech and 4k+ in these NEC displays since I do miss the extra deep blacks and contrast even for photos.

    That said screen uniformity, colors not going wonky looked at even a hint off angle, perfect primary location, perfect saturation and primary luminance tracking, wide gamut, etc. also matter a ton and these PA series do all that amazingly well (Eizo too, although they cost twice as much).
    The internal 14bit 3D LUT in these PA monitors works wonders. And unlike with most wide gamut monitors you can pop it into a PERFECT sRGB emulation with not only just gamma 2.2 option but even sRGB TRC options as well, in fact, it does sRGB a lot better than virtually any sRGB monitor, almost all of which actually fall a bit short of sRGB primaries.

    These are superb monitors!!!! That also said I can't wait until they get OLED into them for amazing blacks and contrast ratios and also 4k+ since the current res is bothersomely low (not that it's worse than 99.9999% of others, I just want the tablet/HDTV retina type stuff to appear in desktop monitors already).
    Reply
  • rabidwombatsquirrel - Saturday, October 26, 2013 - link

    Yeah being able to get low black levels is important and I surely wish IPS was better.

    That said, much of what you are saying is totally wrong! Dynamic range is not the ability to distinguish between various dark tones and various bright tones. And a low contrast ratio absolutely does not mean that dark tones appear crushed!!!! (unless you are using absolute calibration to pure black instead of relative, which doesn't work out all that well on anything other than OLED screens, although the top PVA and plasma could almost start to get away with it without crushing too much but even then you'll lose the ability to tell apart the very darkest tones) or that bright tones appear clipped!

    A monitor with a poor contrast ratio tends to have blacks that are not all that dark and it's often easier to see into deep shadow details on them.

    A monitor with superb calibration will leave the lowest steps all distinguishable if you use relative black level calibration while many cheap ones, even with intensely deep black levels and high contrast ratio, may crush all those tones together with no way to separate them and they might also clip the top end so the top few shades all look the same, that definitely isn't the case here.

    Not measure here are things like saturation tracking curves and primary luminance tracking curves, many monitors appear to be perfectly calibrated but if you toss in these tests many will fail, some quite badly, here the lines are near perfect thanks to the 14bit 3D LUT.
    Reply
  • rabidwombatsquirrel - Saturday, October 26, 2013 - link

    My post above was supposed to be to Hulk not you Senti, sorry it got placed wrong. Reply
  • Death666Angel - Friday, September 27, 2013 - link

    Well, NEC has been doing it like this for most of their high-ish end monitors for years and clearly they are much sought after. The way they make their displays so homogeneous is resulting in this "low" contrast ratio. I haven't ever seen anyone complain about contrast ratios above 500:1 in the professional space this is aimed at. I have also never seen anyone want an OLED display for their work, as you seem to desire. Also, last I checked, print contrast ratios are below 500:1 as are nearly all film/tv contrast ratios. Reply
  • chrnochime - Friday, September 27, 2013 - link

    If you are as much an expert as you claim to be you wouldn't need to cast doubt into how good this monitor is when it comes to contrast, since you'd KNOW already. And if it's anywhere as bad as you think it is, NEC would not have people still buying them to warrant making this most recent iteration. Reply
  • ZeDestructor - Friday, September 27, 2013 - link

    A 16:10 display! rare things these days..

    Nice results, but how does it compare to the similarly-targeted/specced Dell U2413, or even the older U2410?

    Kinda dissapointed at the lack of 4K at 24" 16:10 (3840x2400), but I guess we still have to wait for the current stock of 1920x1200 panels to get pushed out and 4K stocks to build... Then again, with some good production, marketing, we could be having 8K at 20" already (my phone has 1920x1080 at 5", just scale up the panel)
    Reply
  • DanNeely - Friday, September 27, 2013 - link

    Defect rates on an 8k panel would probably be prohibitive. Reply
  • ZeDestructor - Friday, September 27, 2013 - link

    I'm curious on how high they are...

    If it remains withing tolerable limits, I'd happily take upto 200 dead pixels or something similar...
    Reply
  • MrSpadge - Saturday, September 28, 2013 - link

    Let's talk again once you have a few dozen permanently white, red green or blue dots right in your primary viewing area! Reply
  • ddriver - Saturday, September 28, 2013 - link

    As long as the pixels aren't clustered in a small region dead (dark) pixels will probably not be distinguishable. Stuck bright pixels are a different matter, but at that pixel pitch shouldn't be that much annoying too. Reply
  • ZeDestructor - Saturday, September 28, 2013 - link

    As ddriver said,, as long as it isn't in a cluster, its fine. 200-400 dead pixels spread out over a 440+ppi 24" panel at 30-60cm (my view distances for a desktop) will be pretty hard to spot.. Reply
  • SodaAnt - Friday, September 27, 2013 - link

    I know that I've seen an 8K prototype at 30" before at least, and it was pretty damn beautiful, but as far as I know, the (well known) company that made it hasn't brought it to market yet. Reply
  • speconomist - Friday, September 27, 2013 - link

    You mean 32K, as the 20''monitor is 16 times larger than a 5'' inches monitor. Reply
  • garadante - Friday, September 27, 2013 - link

    No, it'd be 8k. Yes, it would be 32 megapixels (roughly) but 4k doesn't mean 4 megapixels. It means 4k pixel width. So 8k pixel width is the same as a 1080p panel stacked 4 wide, 4 high. Reply
  • BlakKW - Saturday, September 28, 2013 - link

    I would really like to understand your analogy of 4 wide, 4 high...it would help me remember the reason 4k is better and how this scales when you add a "k". Also, I've seen it argued that even 4k exceeds the human eye's ability to differentiate, so at what point does "everyone" agree you can't tell the difference? Reply
  • ZeDestructor - Saturday, September 28, 2013 - link

    4 wide, 4 high he means in terms of "stitching" 1920x1080 (2Kx1K resolution, abbreviated to 2K in some circles, 1080p elsewhere) panels, leading to an effective resolution of 7680x4320 (8Kx4K naming).

    When I was referring to a panel sizes, I was referring to the diagonal measurement, as most things are quoted/marketed/sold using that measure. Thus 20" = 16 5" panels.

    "4k is better and how this scales when you add a "k". " It doesn't. K stands for "kilo", the x1000 prefix.
    Reply
  • 1Angelreloaded - Saturday, October 05, 2013 - link

    Actually the whole 1080p labeling is for the HDTV industry and makes no complete sense to use in the PC space and 1080p(1920x1200) is 16 megapixels with 16:10 wide(Camera dependant). Reply
  • bobbozzo - Friday, September 27, 2013 - link

    I have the Dell u2412M... I like that it's 16:10 (versus my 16:9 Samsung (below)); on 16:9 I don't feel like there's room for the taskbar...

    Anandtech reviewed the 2412:
    http://www.anandtech.com/show/5550/dell-u2412m-16-...

    At home I have a 23" Samsung 2343bwx which is 2048x1180, but its TN panel has serious problems for me when doing design or photo work; the viewing angle affects colors so much that a solid color looks significantly different at top or bottom of the screen versus the middle. If I move my head, it changes, so it's not a uniformity problem; just viewing angle. I sit over arm's length away, so it'd be even worse closer up.
    Reply
  • ZeDestructor - Saturday, September 28, 2013 - link

    2412 is only sRGB, not wide gamut like the 2408, U2410 and U2413.

    I agree on anything wider than 16:10 being too wide. 16:10 IMO is the perfect size this side of dynamically-sized holograms.
    Reply
  • tarzan1234 - Monday, December 09, 2013 - link

    This monitor is designed for graphic designers and digital photographers and they don't need and don't want high contrast. The goal is what you see on screen is what you get in prints. That means what's on the display must be as close to what's on a print as possible. In a standard viewing condition (standard light, natural daylight white), matte paper prints have contrast ratio of about 1:200, luster paper has contrast ratio of about 1:250 to 1:300 and glossy paper has a contrast ratio of about 1:350 to 1:400. For that reason, if you have a high contrast monitor, what you see on screen will be different from what you get in print. You can't change contrast ratio of paper, the only thing you can do is to have a monitor that can be adjusted close to that. That's what professional grade monitors are for. Some of the very best (and most expensive) graphic monitors are made by Eizo, and their contrast ratios are in 1:250 to 1:400 range. One additional note, photographers often set their monitor light output to around 80cd/m2 to 120cd/m2 for the same reason, getting close to how prints look. If the display is brighter, you often end up with dark prints because if it looks OK on a to bright monitor, the prints will be too dark. Reply
  • WhitneyLand - Friday, September 27, 2013 - link

    >>do you need this? If you’re asking that question then you probably don’t.

    Instead of this answer how about telling us things like:
    1) Is it possible to see benefits without calibration tools?
    2) Is it possible to see benefits in applications that don't manage color profiles?
    3) If you grab a couple non color-pro friends and ask them if it looks better, what do they say?
    Reply
  • cheinonen - Friday, September 27, 2013 - link

    OK, I'll answer those quickly then:

    1) Yes, because the out-of-box experience is also very good and it is still more uniform than any other display tested to date. The calibration does not affect the uniformity.
    2) Yes, and especially with calibration. The SpectraView software does all of its work inside the monitor LUT, leaving the video LUT alone. So color profiles or not, the image should be basically perfect.
    3) I'd have to grab them and see, though I'll admit to mostly having friends who I've converted to really caring about color.
    Reply
  • DanNeely - Friday, September 27, 2013 - link

    As a multi-monitor user #3 matters to me because it makes all my screens look the same. At work I've got 3 mismatched Dell screens (1901, 2208, 2210); and the fact that despite fiddling I can't get the colors on them to match is noticeable and a bit annoying. At home I have 3 NEC monitors (all bought refurbed to avoid breaking the bank) 2x 2090 and 1x 3090; out of the box colors between the three are close enough to each other that I've never felt the need to buy a colorimeter to calibrate them. Reply
  • inighthawki - Friday, September 27, 2013 - link

    My experience has taught me to always go with the same monitors in multimon setups. 2x or 3x of the same brand, same model. Reply
  • DanNeely - Friday, September 27, 2013 - link

    Even if I could've afforded multiple 30's at home I don't have the deskspace for them; and in any event I bought the 20's a year or two before the 30. (The 3way setup was however a major factor in why I bought what I did.)

    At work I got the screens one at a time; and had a pair of 2208's at one point; they matched each other about as poorly as the 2208 and 2210 do.
    Reply
  • powruser - Saturday, September 28, 2013 - link

    We have very similar setups. I have one 2490WUXi as my primary display and two 2090UXi as secondary display. All are first generation models which have the A-TW polarizer which greatly reduces the purple IPS glow on dark images when viewing at off angles. I also bought mine refurbished. NEC has excellent refurbs, and their warranty service is excellent as well. You'd have to pry my A-TW NEC displays from my cold dead hands! :) Reply
  • cheinonen - Monday, September 30, 2013 - link

    The current version of CalMAN, at least one of the higher end versions, has support for calibrating a set of displays to look identical. It might mean none of them are perfect, but they all look about the same. I've never tested it out, as it's meant for commercial installations, but that might help with this issue if you already have the monitors. Reply
  • 1Angelreloaded - Saturday, October 05, 2013 - link

    instead of using 3 monitors, have you ever thought about moving to a large format display they make professional based ones for 40inch and higher now at 4k levels with IPS tech, that's a lot more realestate than say 3 1080p s side by side. Reply
  • nathanddrews - Friday, September 27, 2013 - link

    I think I already know the answer to this: "too much".

    How much would it actually add to the cost of a monitor to have it pre-calibrated using this method at the factory? Obviously a trained human would be expensive and time consuming, but what about a series of sensors on the assembly line that tune the display before packaging? Panels that meet the requirements for uniformity and gamut get one price, displays that can't make the cut go off to a different bin. Doesn't seem too ridiculous to me.
    Reply
  • Senti - Friday, September 27, 2013 - link

    The problem is the transportation after that will likely screw everything in unpredictable way. Reply
  • nathanddrews - Friday, September 27, 2013 - link

    How, exactly? I've never heard of shipping or transporting affecting display calibration... Reply
  • foxalopex - Friday, September 27, 2013 - link

    Professional calibration software like Spectraview is designed to ask for a recalibration every 2-4 weeks. So yes by the time it gets to you it's not as calibrated as it could be. Keep in mind this is a professional monitor so they're nothing like a normal user. If you're more on a budget, a good $600-700 IPS monitor would probably work for most folks but for folks who insist on the best, you can't go wrong. Reply
  • DanNeely - Friday, September 27, 2013 - link

    That drift is due to components aging with; a good factory calibration should still be good when you unbox it and will stay better than what we normally suffer with for a while since the bad one is drifting too.

    Some tablet vendors have been doing it for at least a year now. I'd be interested in seeing how much the screens on them have drifted if Anandtech used any of the tablets they did color calibration testing a year ago as daily drivers.
    Reply
  • bobbozzo - Friday, September 27, 2013 - link

    see above:
    cheinonen - Friday, September 27, 2013
    ...the out-of-box experience is also very good and it is still more uniform than any other display tested to date. The calibration does not affect the uniformity.
    Reply
  • cheinonen - Saturday, September 28, 2013 - link

    Just as an FYI, measuring the uniformity to the degree that I do takes close to two hours per display. That's with a fast meter and moving it between locations as quickly as possible but still allowing time for each sample to settle and be accurate. Adding that kind of testing to every display will increase the price a lot. Most companies wouldn't see any return on investment there, since the majority of consumers still don't care enough. Even if you only add $25 to the cost, that's a lot for most people unless you're talking about $1,200 displays. Reply
  • dushyanth - Friday, September 27, 2013 - link

    which would you choose: Eizo CS230 or this Reply
  • risa2000 - Friday, September 27, 2013 - link

    I have some "cheap" Eizo and cannot complain, all my friends who are amateur photographers have Eizos, it is kind of benchmark here (Europe), but I have never seen a review of anything Eizo here. So either they do not sell them in US, or Anand has some itch about them. Reply
  • cheinonen - Saturday, September 28, 2013 - link

    Eizo has never contacted me about a review sample, nor have I heard back from them the times I have tried to contact them. I have nothing against Eizo, and I'd love to review some of them, but they've never provided the opportunity. That's all. Reply
  • foxalopex - Friday, September 27, 2013 - link

    Awesome, I actually own this monitor. I bought it about a week ago as PA242W-BK-SK kit which includes NEC's rebranded X-rite Calibrator. I have to agree with Anandtech's review, it's an absolutely amazing monitor for any colour accurate work. Doing some research according to specifications, it uses the newest developed AH-IPS panels from LG (2011) and brand new backlight technology so it is definitely state of the art.

    I wonder if Anandtech is using the latest updated SpectraView software because there are a few settings which might help. (Didn't try the previous version which came with the monitor) I recall a special check box in the settings for low cadela settings which averages out the readings which helps weaker sensors work better and a slower 52 point setting that is suppose to get better results.

    That said, I agree with their conclusions. It's only major weakness is that the black level isn't as black as it could be. But it more than makes up for it in that you can actually see gradients of grey. It's hard to explain but to the eyes it's a weird thing to see. At first you can't see as much contrast as some high end LCD TVs but at the same time you see tremendously more details in the gradients from the light to dark areas. This is what makes it spectacular as a professional LCD monitor and valuable for photographic work.

    That said, I know some of you mentioning this is too expensive. It isn't for the folks who know what it's used for. After all you wouldn't take an F1 car (which probably be beat by a cheapo truck) to do offroad rally racing with.
    Reply
  • chrnochime - Friday, September 27, 2013 - link

    Agreed. This is a tool for amateur/professional photographers/photo work, not for gaming. And really, it's the same price of a titan, which definitely will depreciate a lot faster in several years while this depreciates a lot less and will still be a great tool to use. Reply
  • hmcindie - Monday, September 30, 2013 - link

    I disagree. What you are seeing is something you really shouldn't see that well. The problem in color grading with a monitor with very low contrast (such as this) is that you tend to overcompensate your curves and do very contrasty looks. With a display that can actually do good contrast ratios, it will just look quite different. I have no idea why these monitors are billed as professional. I have a couple NECs and EIZOs at work and they are not all that. There is a reason all our serious grading is done with plasmas (though those suck at desktop work). Reply
  • foxalopex - Monday, September 30, 2013 - link

    I guess you don't do much work as a photographer then. A known problem in photography is that the average photographer will over saturate and over contrast pictures compared to what is really there. Someone who's very serious into photography and isn't trying to go for an entirely artistic impression is usually trying to get the the photo to as close to real life as possible. Working with raw photos, one of the problems you realize is that if you over-boost the contrast, it might look visually better to a casual viewer but you end up losing a lot of details in the images. This is something you see all the time with cheaper digicams. They produce vibrant, over contrasted pictures expected by the consumer while a professional digital camera doesn't but has amazing true dynamic range. Monitors can be like that too. NEC's and Eizo's are well loved because they display a large range of colors. Cheap monitors tend to over saturate and over contrast because while they look good, they are not very accurate. When you mean plasma, I assume a TV. A TV is optimized to crank out as much light as possible. You can't do that without sacrificing some of the quality in the image. NEC's and Eizo's are meant to be used in low light environments so they don't need to be super bright. Reply
  • hmcindie - Tuesday, October 01, 2013 - link

    I actually do quite a lot of work as a photographer and as a color grader. NEC and Eizo have horrible dynamic range as monitors. They color performance is good, but nothing dramatically different from example my home monitor which is the HP2740w (calibrated). For example the 2grand Eizo I'm using at work has worse light bleed in the corners. So no, I do not agree that these things are worth the money. We use Panasonic Plasmas for grading at work and at home I have the Pioneer Kuro (last model before discontinued) and it blows away any NEC or EIZO. The difference in dynamic range and color fidelity is not even close. It's not about saturation, it's about accuracy. Reply
  • Alan G - Friday, September 27, 2013 - link

    Those of us who are photographers swear by NEC monitors and the Spectraview callibration system (though I sometimes use the ArgyllCMS software which offers more flexibility and has the added feature of being free). The most important thing for us is to get an image on our display that will most closely resemble the print that comes out of our printer so that we can use Soft Proofing in Photoshop or Lightroom to make the necessary corrections. I'm worried that your test settings will misinform those potential users who might be photographers but have never had a monitor like this one. 200 cd/m^2 is really very high. Almost everyone that I know is somewhere in the 110-140 range depending on the lighting of their work room. I drop the contrast down to 250:1 as well. It may be that folks who do video editing work with higher settings because their end display is far different from a photographic print.

    These niggles aside, it's good to see NEC come out with a new display. My P221W is still working well after five years and the color is still faithful. I'll likely be getting this new one next year.
    Reply
  • cheinonen - Saturday, September 28, 2013 - link

    We do everything at 200 cd/m2, as that was a more common setting for general use, and at 80 cd/m2, which is the sRGB standard. Adding 140 cd/m2 would be possible but also add a lot of extra work to the reviews and I feel that 80 and 200 covers it fairly well. Reply
  • birdsoneview - Saturday, September 28, 2013 - link

    Looks great for photo, graphics, and visual effects work, but for film/video editing that input lag is unacceptable. Reply
  • AssBall - Sunday, September 29, 2013 - link

    Wrong. It is perfectly acceptable. Reply
  • foxalopex - Monday, September 30, 2013 - link

    Input lag? The monitor is rated for 27 ms which works out to 37 fps. Video is typically only shot at 25 or 29.97 fps. While a gamer might need more than this, video certainly isn't this fast. Reply
  • marqs - Monday, September 30, 2013 - link

    Input lag consists of signal processing latency and pixel response time, of which only the latter limits the practical fps. By enabling overdrive the response time should improve by a couple of ms. Btw, I think the latency charts wrongly claim to be against an CRT, if the results are taken from averaging the results from Leo Bodnar lag tester (which results to ~7.5ms for a lagless CRT). The real input lag for PA242W should be around 20ms with default settings. Reply
  • cbelle - Monday, September 30, 2013 - link

    720/60 is a standard used by many including ABC, ESPN and FOX in the US. So this is still could be an issue to video and music editors (video sync playback).

    Not horrendous but not great either. But if it can be lowered to 20ms that would be nice.

    For video editing I think it still lacks 10 bit, SDI and video production specific needs. It is nice alternative for home editing but not sure in a suite or in the field.
    Reply
  • Bitmambo - Saturday, September 28, 2013 - link

    When will Anandtech test Eizo displays and see whether the significant price gap is justified ? One area that is hardly if ever addressed in display reviews is the bit depth of the DAC circuits, and the resultant impact on signal aliasing (Mach banding) and the quality of gradients, the signal-to-noise ratio. Uniformity, linearity, brightness, contrast ratio, response time and gamut are not all there is to display technology. Speaking of contrast ratio, we need numbers, that are not biased by the absolute blackness of the display, since anything below 1% brightness will multiply the factor enormously for not huge perceptual gain. A linearity plot showing the length of the straight portion of the gamma-corrected display should help compare display performance. Look at what the folks at Digital Photography Review do to compare cameras. Reply
  • TheRealAnalogkid - Tuesday, October 01, 2013 - link

    ...and people look at me weird because I have a second Sony GDM-FW900 Monitor in the closet for after the one I'm using dies. I'll miss them when they're gone; maybe tech will make something comparable by then. Reply
  • katherine0james - Wednesday, October 02, 2013 - link

    my parents in-law recently got an awesome red Lincoln MKS Sedan just by part time work online. site here..... http://CuttR.it/tvtmbce Reply
  • Kathrine647 - Wednesday, October 02, 2013 - link

    like Gregory said I am alarmed that a stay at home mom able to earn $5886 in 1 month on the internet. visit their website............B u z z 5 5 . com open the link without spaces Reply
  • CSMR - Wednesday, October 02, 2013 - link

    1920x1200 on a 24" is low resolution. 24" tend to be this resolution and you can see all the very large pixels. I would not recommend 24" screens for profesisonal use until manufacturers start increasing the resolution. 1440p would be perfect on this screen size. Reply
  • alison_lenihan - Thursday, October 03, 2013 - link

    what Eric said I am shocked that some people can profit $4550 in one month on the computer. see post..>..... CuttR.it/tvtmbce Reply
  • mrstonecold - Friday, October 04, 2013 - link

    Does anybody now if this screen uses an active cooling element (fan) like the new eizo screens cx240 and the cg246. I'm in the market to replace my primary screen (dell u2410) and I prefer a quiet work environment. Thx. Reply
  • foxalopex - Friday, October 04, 2013 - link

    The NEC-PA242W is absolutely silent, there is no fan. It doesn't even have a high pitched whine which is nice. The monitor is pretty thick partially for passive cooling I suspect as looking into the cooling vents at the top, you can see a massive airspace behind the actual panel hardware itself. Reply
  • Laststop311 - Sunday, October 06, 2013 - link

    I guess this monitor is great for certain professionals. But for people like me that game and watch movies it really just stinks. Samsung makes an awesome 27" monitor with a bery nice contrast ratio with deep blacks and great detail I forget the model number but look for 27" 2560x1440 Samsung Reply
  • Laststop311 - Sunday, October 06, 2013 - link

    I use a Dell u3014 because I found it on craigslist for 775 which i talked the guy down to 515 Reply
  • foxalopex - Monday, October 07, 2013 - link

    For most folks a ~$700 monitor will admittedly be more than enough for most uses. Some of us however really want a professional monitor for precision work. Reply
  • foxalopex - Monday, October 07, 2013 - link

    It's actually pretty good for watching movies as well. The lag isn't as bad as you think. Though yes, this isn't for a high end gamer. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now