27"-30" computer monitors info and opinions - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 31 Old 04-21-2012, 09:10 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,489
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 60
The goal of this thread is to collect information about the 27-30" monitors and especially user experiences and opinions.

27-30" monitors are available in several different species: there are those with the 1920x1080p res and 2560x1440 res, some older ones are in the 16:10 format @2560x1600. Of most interest is the beyond-HD resolution which sets the path to the 4K Holy Grail.

It seems that the 30" size and the 16:10 format is disappearing and new models are exclusively 27" and 16:9. Most of the new models are of the HD 1920x1080 res but there are some more professionally oriented have the 2560x1440 res which might be cseen as Quad720p. Pricess differ but one can find any type of them at consumer price levels.

Advantage of the 1920x1080 monitors is that one can use it with the HDTV natively with no scaling needed. Advantage of the 2560x1440 res is higher resolution for packing more details which should be OK for computer apps. However, it seems that the 2560x1440 vs 1920x1080 issue is not well explored so it would be good to know if the difference in resolution is really visible and if it matters,. Has anybody had a chance to compare those resolutions? Which 27" monitors are best?

irkuck
irkuck is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 31 Old 04-21-2012, 10:27 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
walford's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 16,789
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Many 16x10 models are/were 1920x1200.
There are still quality 27" and 32" 1366x768 montors/TVs available which are normally used for commercial use (menus, other store displays) since they have a standard windows PC resolution with a physically larger text font then 1080p models.
walford is offline  
post #3 of 31 Old 04-21-2012, 01:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joxer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern CA
Posts: 5,212
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
An alternative that many have done is use a 1080p HDTV as a computer monitor with HDMI or VGA input.
Such as a Samsung 32" 1080p LCD HDTV.
You get a built-in TV tuner too.
Joxer is offline  
post #4 of 31 Old 04-21-2012, 04:49 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
walford's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 16,789
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
If you get a TV make sure that the both the HDMI port and the VGA port will support the TV's native resolution, not all do.
I don't know what makes/models of monitor's the people in call centers and brokerage firms use but I am sure they are not the low priced value models.
walford is offline  
post #5 of 31 Old 04-21-2012, 09:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary McCoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: San Jose, California, USA
Posts: 6,247
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 43
IMHO the 1920x1080 (aka 1080p) resolution is perfect for a monitor up to 23" diagonal. It gives crisp text and fine detail at that size while in computer use. For a larger screen viewed at the normal 1-2 feet that most people use a monitor at on a desk, you want a higher-than-1080p resolution.

The ideal viewing distance for a 1080p television is 1.5-2.5 times the screen diagonal size IMHO. At the close limit, you are on the verge of seeing individual pixels. At the far limit, the screen "subtends" too little of your field of view, you lose immersion in the material. Using a greater-than-1080p resolution allows you to sit closer to the monitor without seeing pixels when viewing video material, which is why I favor as much resolution as you can get for a monitor larger than 23" diagonal.

23" and 1080p is the ideal for computer, gaming, and HDTV viewing at your desk. Go for as much resolution as you can get for a 25" or 27" or 30" monitor.

Gary McCoy
The United States Constitution ©1791. All Rights Reserved.

Gary McCoy is offline  
post #6 of 31 Old 04-22-2012, 01:42 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,489
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

23" and 1080p is the ideal for computer, gaming, and HDTV viewing at your desk. Go for as much resolution as you can get for a 25" or 27" or 30" monitor.

30" monitors seem to be on the extinction, they are still available but as far as I could check there were no new models last year. As they use older panels their response time tend to be longer.

The choice for 27" monitor is between the 1920x1080 and 2560x1440 resolution. Question is, if and what kind of visual impact comes from the increased resolution. For example fonts of the same size may look sharper on the higher resolution but is this immediately visible? Full screen HDTV quality on the 2560x1440 will depend on upscaling, native monitor may look better then.

There is indeed question about using the 32" HTDV TV as the computer monitor. Some TVs have HDMI PC input so there should be no problem with getting the picture right. But how the PQ of the 32" TV compares to the 27" or 30" computer monitor? Is pixel matrix of TV different from monitor /e.g. lower filling ratio/? Does HD resolution look insufficient for the 32" used as computer monitor?

irkuck
irkuck is online now  
post #7 of 31 Old 04-22-2012, 04:38 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary McCoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: San Jose, California, USA
Posts: 6,247
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Good point about the quality of video scaling. The answer depends upon just HOW you are displaying HDTV. In an HDTV set, the video quality depends on the capabilities of the scaling chipset inside the set - I would say "good". On a monitor fed a fullcreen image from a PC, the image quality depends upon the PC video board. For a high-end video board that will drive a high resolution monitor at a decent frame rate during a PC game, the video scaling will be very very good, better than the typical HDTV hardware.

As for the appearance of text, it depends upon screen resolution and seating/viewing distance. Think through the scenarios of use. I assume you will be seated some distance from the monitor. For me, I sit about one diagonal screen distance from my 1080p monitor - about two feet in front of a 23" monitor. Text is readable and crisp. I view video at the same distance. In my Home Theater, I sit about 8' from my 96" projection screen, for immersion in the image.

For a 32" 1080p monitor, sitting about 30-35" from the screen would produce a good usable view. Any closer and your screen fonts will take on a jagged appearance and individual pixels will be visible. Realisticly, mock it up with a piece of cardboard the same size and shape as the display on the desk. Sittng back 35" from the screen may not be possible if you need a keyboard/game controller sitting on the desktop.

The 30" Apple and Dell Ultrasharp displays are gorgeous. But a 32" or larger 1080p monitor is too large to use comfortably as a monitor IMHO, because of the distance you must sit away from it..

Gary McCoy
The United States Constitution ©1791. All Rights Reserved.

Gary McCoy is offline  
post #8 of 31 Old 04-22-2012, 12:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Elix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Dungeon, Pillar of Eyes
Posts: 1,199
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 23
I'm sitting 50" from a 42" plasma and I feel I could use a 50" panel here...
Elix is offline  
post #9 of 31 Old 04-22-2012, 12:42 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,489
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

For a 32" 1080p monitor, sitting about 30-35" from the screen would produce a good usable view. Any closer and your screen fonts will take on a jagged appearance and individual pixels will be visible. Realisticly, mock it up with a piece of cardboard the same size and shape as the display on the desk. Sittng back 35" from the screen may not be possible if you need a keyboard/game controller sitting on the desktop.


Just to clarify, I do not see pixels on a 24 inch HD monitor even when looking from 10 inch. I am thus not certain if pixels are so visible on the 32" HDTV that it can not be used as monitor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

The 30" Apple and Dell Ultrasharp displays are gorgeous. But a 32" or larger 1080p monitor is too large to use comfortably as a monitor IMHO, because of the distance you must sit away from it..

Does one really need to sit uncomfortably far from them? I sit at a distance about same as diagonal of the 24" monitor and my impression is I would sit at almost the same distance from the 30" monitor?

irkuck
irkuck is online now  
post #10 of 31 Old 04-22-2012, 01:05 PM
Advanced Member
 
tory40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 749
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Another option you might not have considered is buying a slightly larger TV and pushing it to the back end of your desk. Thats what i've done with my 46" 3DTV. This provides a few benefits that not everyone will need: It frees up desk space in front of you, it can retain pixel detail as long as you don't go to high and if you back up from your desk to get comfortable when watching a movie, the viewing field of view doesn't shrink.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

23" and 1080p is the ideal for computer, gaming, and HDTV viewing at your desk.

Not for me, i thought my 30" Dell was too small for movies and gaming. Almost all PC games have ways to increase the rendering FoV, which I do for immersion. I'd gladly use one of the new Phillips wide 21:9 3DTV's if it utilized the whole 2560x1080 resolution in 3D.

Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Does one really need to sit uncomfortably far from them? I sit at a distance about same as diagonal of the 24" monitor and my impression is I would sit at almost the same distance from the 30" monitor?

I placed my 30" where my 24" was. Initially i though moving my head a bit to see from side to side was going to be an issue. I wasn't, at all im happy to report, but im 35 now, older folks might have an issue there? Now that i have my 46" and have had to increase the head movement, i once again had an increase in head movement and wondered if it was going to be a problem, but i got used to it very quickly.
tory40 is offline  
post #11 of 31 Old 04-24-2012, 01:31 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,489
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 60
^^My impression is that using large TV as a monitor is kind of different, less personal experience due to the distance. Should be fine for games but maybe not for typical work.

Observation that 30" monitor does not require uncomfortable head movements: is the viewing distance same as for the 24"?

What remains to be discussed is the difference bettween the 2560x1440 and 1920x1080 resolutions on the same size monitors which in practice means 27".

There are some hints that increased resolution provides impression of larger workspace, see recent review of a Samsung 27" monitor. However, this is not a simple question of packing more visuals since fonts and other items can not be reduced in size.

irkuck
irkuck is online now  
post #12 of 31 Old 04-24-2012, 08:31 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
walford's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 16,789
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
If using Win7 select change resolution after right clicking on your desktop and select "Screen Resolution". Then select "Make test and other items larger or smaller".
Unless you have a specific application which will be better if 2560x1440 is the displays native resolution get a unit with 1080p as the native resolution.
walford is offline  
post #13 of 31 Old 04-24-2012, 01:05 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,489
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by walford View Post

Unless you have a specific application which will be better if 2560x1440 is the displays native resolution get a unit with 1080p as the native resolution.

Do you mean 1080p will be better for playing HD natively? 2560 may look better with standard computer tasks providing e.g. more crispy texts, no? If the conclusion is that 1080p is better than 2560, how about the 4K monitors? Monitors based on Sharp 4k@32" IGZO panels should become available this year.

irkuck
irkuck is online now  
post #14 of 31 Old 04-24-2012, 02:18 PM
Senior Member
 
ebernazz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 427
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

^^My impression is that using large TV as a monitor is kind of different, less personal experience due to the distance. Should be fine for games but maybe not for typical work.

Observation that 30" monitor does not require uncomfortable head movements: is the viewing distance same as for the 24"?

What remains to be discussed is the difference bettween the 2560x1440 and 1920x1080 resolutions on the same size monitors which in practice means 27".

There are some hints that increased resolution provides impression of larger workspace, see recent review of a Samsung 27" monitor. However, this is not a simple question of packing more visuals since fonts and other items can not be reduced in size.

IRKUCK... I don't understand your post. Fonts are scaled all the time and screen res plays an important role in the quality. I must be interpreting your post differently than you meant. Viewing the Word Doc at 50% vs 100% vs 200% changes the real estate view of the screen even though the font is still x points and screen res definitely affects the quality of the resultant zoom...
ebernazz is offline  
post #15 of 31 Old 04-24-2012, 04:54 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
walford's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 16,789
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Irkirk,
What I meant is that unless a non video application is designed for 2560x1440 then a 1080p monitor IMHO will provide a bettter overall user experience then if the content has to upscaled to increase the physical size of text and/or objects due to problems such as jaggies on slanted edges.
walford is offline  
post #16 of 31 Old 04-24-2012, 11:35 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,489
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by walford View Post

Irkirk,
What I meant is that unless a non video application is designed for 2560x1440 then a 1080p monitor IMHO will provide a bettter overall user experience then if the content has to upscaled to increase the physical size of text and/or objects due to problems such as jaggies on slanted edges.

What you mean by application designed for 2560? Applications are supposed to be scalabale, independent from resolution?

What I mean by visuals res issue is that e.g. fonts should have the same visual size independent if it is 2560 or 1920 res. But then fonts at the 2560 size will be composed of more pixels and can look nicer.

Regarding 1080p video I agree it should be better on native 1080 than upscaled on 2560. But there are tons of people here claiming that 1080p video will look better on 4K TV than on native 2K TV - one wonders if they would claim the same for 2560 . In the end the difference can be small if upscaler is good.

irkuck
irkuck is online now  
post #17 of 31 Old 04-25-2012, 10:22 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
walford's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 16,789
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I agree 1080p video will look better at the higher resolution. I am concerned about the upscalng.
A 2560 application could be one such as photo or video editing where additional detai improves the image.
Yes fonts can be upscaled but that does mean that they will look the same since when a pixel is inserted between two different colored pixels on a line edge or on a diagonal you can get jaggies since the color of the inserted could be a dup of one of one of them or could be meger of the two different colors depending on the upscaling algorithm.
Networks spend many thousands of $ on dedicated upscaling hardware systems. in order to improve the picture quality of inserted pixels. This is evident when you watch a program "filmed" with an 480i camera on a 1080p display where the network upscales the 480i content for broadcast on a HD channel with a stand alone scalera and compare it with a user's TV that uses an inexpensive upscaling chip.
You may find the following link informative:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_scaler
walford is offline  
post #18 of 31 Old 04-25-2012, 10:59 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,489
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Here is a recent review of Samsung 27" 2560x1440 monitor. There are several remarks hinting the Dell U2711 is better.

irkuck
irkuck is online now  
post #19 of 31 Old 04-26-2012, 01:15 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
walford's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 16,789
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
An excellent review I found the last sentance to be a valid summary.
walford is offline  
post #20 of 31 Old 04-26-2012, 05:27 PM
Advanced Member
 
tory40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 749
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
27" is way too small guys. I just received an Asus VG278H 3D monitor to try out since HDMI won't do full 1080p in 3D in games and i wanted to see what I was missing. My initial impressions are: not much, and theres no chance in hell i can see going back to this size after trying it out for the first night. The FoV of the 46" is priceless for immersion, games are boring thing on this thing despite the sharpness increase. The difference the finer pixel pitch makes, to my delight, is pretty small. Its much more noticeable so far in games though, but on the flip side, its easier to notice the fakeness of the cg world. Im looking at my desktop and going through several 1080p background images i frequently use and asking myself if i can see anything that is significantly visually sharper and im just not seeing much. When i went through even the stock Windows backgrounds when i first switched to the 46 [from 30"] I went "wow" at each one. Another thing i noticed is that the scope of the larger screen means that when, say, a small video loads on a homepage somewhere, its very large since your essentially zoomed in and i like that a lot more. It makes it look like you have several TV's on one screen.

Disclaimer: Opinion subject to change since its only my first day with it.
tory40 is offline  
post #21 of 31 Old 04-26-2012, 10:01 PM
Member
 
Nugget's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Houston Texas USA
Posts: 97
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I've been using a 30" Apple Cinema display (2560x1600) since they launched in 2004 and just recently (about six months ago) switched to a 27" (2560x1440). It took me about a week to adjust to the loss of vertical resolution, everything seemed a little bit "squished" vertically at first. On the whole, I think I prefer the higher DPI of the 27", but I can definitely notice the slight reduction in operating space. It's worth the slight loss of pixels to have a modern panel and the tighter resolution.

Unless you're just sitting at your desk watching movies or playing certain genres of games, the pixel count is infinitely more important than the physical size of the screen. There's practically no amount of money you could pay me to move to a 46" display if it meant I had to lose all the pixels and downgrade to just 1920x1080 pixels. That would be crippling.

You can't have too many pixels. For using a computer, that's all that matters.

Home Page - Photos - Music :: "Unless you start making a point instead of just stating a point you're only ranting."

Nugget is offline  
post #22 of 31 Old 04-26-2012, 10:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
specuvestor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,399
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
^^ I just got to ask: What made you "downgrade"? Apple Display started to give problem?
specuvestor is offline  
post #23 of 31 Old 04-27-2012, 02:13 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,489
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 60
^^
^^ There are no new 30" monitors so no replacement possible other than the 27". Sun in the tunnel are monitors based on the Sharp 32"@4K panel but how long will be the waiting time and what will be the price when they show up?

irkuck
irkuck is online now  
post #24 of 31 Old 04-27-2012, 09:06 AM
Member
 
Nugget's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Houston Texas USA
Posts: 97
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I swapped to the 27" displays at the office because I needed to replace my aging Mac Pro and the current Mac Pro wasn't a very attractive option (it's overdue for an update). So I went with a 27" iMac (and second 27" display) to replace my dual 30" ACDs and the ancient Mac Pro.

I still use a single 30" ACD on my newer-ish Mac Pro at home.

Home Page - Photos - Music :: "Unless you start making a point instead of just stating a point you're only ranting."

Nugget is offline  
post #25 of 31 Old 04-27-2012, 09:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
specuvestor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,399
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
^^ OIC the catalyst is the Mac Pro, not the display.
specuvestor is offline  
post #26 of 31 Old 04-27-2012, 09:58 AM
Senior Member
 
ebernazz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 427
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

^^
^^ There are no new 30" monitors so no replacement possible other than the 27". Sun in the tunnel are monitors based on the Sharp 32"@4K panel but how long will be the waiting time and what will be the price when they show up?

I must again be misreading this thread. Dell WQXGA monitors are fine and they certainly do sell a 30" one currently.
ebernazz is offline  
post #27 of 31 Old 04-27-2012, 10:44 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,489
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by ebernazz View Post

I must again be misreading this thread. Dell WQXGA monitors are fine and they certainly do sell a 30" one currently.

True, the 30" Dell is still on offer. But this monitor is from 2010 and it does not look likely it will be followed be a newer one. The 30" is in the 16:10 format while all new ones are in the 16:9 with size limited to 27".

The 30" is option now for those who are looking for the biggest gun and do not want to wait for unknown amount of time /6m, 1yr?/ for the 32"@4K /which also may be plenty expensive in the beginning, who knows/.

BTW, there is a serious expert claim the 27" actually feels better than the 30". Maybe this is the reason why the 30" is disappearing?

irkuck
irkuck is online now  
post #28 of 31 Old 09-07-2012, 05:38 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,489
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 60
I finally decided to buy the new Samsung 27" @2560x1440 S27B970D monitor. This monitor comes individually calibrated and indeed colors and uniformity are excellent. The 2560x1440 resolution is really enjoyable to watch and the new Intel Ivy Bridge processors support it amazingly well without the need for dedicated graphics adapters, just from the DisplayPort motheboard connector.

There is however one potential huge disadvantage, the monitor is high gloss and its display surface is quite reflexive. I would not recommend it for working conditions with strong lighting sources (windows, lamps) behind, this monitor is suitable for darker rooms. All in all, it is hard to understand why Samsung puts so much effort in glossy design for professional monitor.

irkuck
irkuck is online now  
post #29 of 31 Old 09-13-2012, 06:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mark Rejhon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: North America
Posts: 8,124
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 96
Presently, I'm waiting for 2560x1440p at 120Hz -- You can do it today using Catleap 2B (Can be ordered at 120hz.net) or pre-ordering the upcoming Overlord Tempest X270OC (OC = "Overclock") from overlordcomputer.com (Info: Refresh-rate overclocking thread) although I'm waiting for things to stabilize, or waiting for one of the mainstream manufacturers (such as Samsung) to introduce such a display.

I'm hoping one of these vendors (or a mainstream vendor) adds a high-speed scanning backlight to permit simulated "960 Hz" operation (on either a 60Hz, 72Hz and/or 120Hz native signal) from these monitors without added input lag.
3lfk1ng likes this.

Thanks,
Mark Rejhon

www.BlurBusters.com

BlurBusters Blog -- Eliminating Motion Blur by 90%+ on LCD for games and computers

Rooting for upcoming low-persistence rolling-scan OLEDs too!

Mark Rejhon is offline  
post #30 of 31 Old 11-30-2012, 03:43 PM
Newbie
 
jGinge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I would get one of these: http://www.squidoo.com/gaming-monitor The size that I like is around 27", 30 might be a little big.
jGinge is offline  
Reply Flat Panels General and OLED Technology

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off