AOC I2757Fh And ViewSonic VX2770Smh: Two 27" IPS Monitors

[scannall]

I'm another guy that went the Korean monitor route. And I couldn't be happier. I've had it for almost a year now, and it looks as good now as when I got it. The only drawback is the 24" TN panel I use as a second monitor looks like crap next to it.

Never going back to TN. Never going back to a resolution less than 2560x1440.

 

[Guest]

who buys this brands anyway? xD

 

[clinamen]

The chromaticity error on the dell 2412 is way off from real world results. I have one and calibrating with the i1 Pro yields a CE of 0.36 average, with red being at about 1.0.

Removing the video card and computer is a bug mistake, imo. Of course there is an almost infinite variety of combinations out there, so which to use? Unfortunately, this approach really does damage to what happens in the real world. The real world is a system, not simply a device.

I run nits at around 100, which corresponds to the brightness range of an inkjet print more closely.

I would like to see the results for Eizo monitors under these conditions.

 

[clinamen]

Well, I don;t know what's going on in this forum. I supposedly have 2 responses as notified but there is nothing here.

This forum is poorly laid out and tedious to navigate.

 

[grumpigeek]

1920x1080 is 10 year old technology!

I have absolutely no interest in any monitor with a resolution less than 2560x1440.

 

[joopdoop1]

Totally agree with your suggestion.. Very nice post and good information here..Thanks for posting that..

 

[Tc17]

The comments here trashing the 1920x1080 resolution are stupid. Like another person stated, since when did HD at 1920x1080p become bad?

I would take that resolution any day over the insane higher resolutions that make everything a pain to read on your monitor. Let me guess, you have your eyes a few inches from the screen.

Higher resolutions also RUIN gameplay fps. Buying a second video card is not an answer for that either, as it adds cost, noise and more compatibility problems running in sli.

 

[Tc17]

The posts complaining about the 1920 resolution are probably from the Korean resellers. The monitors with no features that only come with a lame one year warranty, and your screwed if you have to get it fixed.

 

[Tc17]

Didn't know this site was full of tech gurus with deep pockets. I will go for this 27" never mind that it's "only" 1080p - I need TV replacement and this will do just fine, especially being IPS panel for such a low cost. Heck even my ASUS 278Q or whatever model is dearer. Any 2560x1440 monitor that is not made in meat factory would cost nearly twice as much so.. Until 4k becomes standard I am fine with 1080p.

I'm betting a lot of these posts are Korean resellers. I agree with you though.

I have a 25.5inch monitor right now at 1920x1200 and can't stand the tiny text as it is.

Higher resolution also takes the biggest hit on fps. Enough to make some games unplayable.

 

[eidol]

There's no point reviewing monitors for color accuracy if they are only 1080 pixels... anyone who wants a color accurate monitor is going to need more vertical res.

If someone is happy with a 1080 monitor, they're probably just surfing or watching movies, hardly requiring accurate color rendition.

 

[Guest]

Lol then you go to the HDTV consumer and he/she says 1080p is too big to notice a difference from 720p... So i'd think its the HDTV market thats holding up the Computer Display market.

 

[valentyn0]

Pass. 27'' is way to big for 1080p, needs 1440 at the minimum.

Manufactures need to stop making 1080p monitors. With 4k around the corner, it should be at least 1440 or 1600 now. Were not gonna get anywhere until someone finally starts to really mass produce higher res monitors

Please for the love of technology, shut up!

U dont get to tell what others need, when the masses hardly even have a full hd monitor, so the 1440/1600 argument should be said towards pros and gamers, which again are hardly called "the mainstream market" ...

+27 inches and only 1080p - totally useless. Why so low resolutions ?!!

Seriously, are u a real person? or an imaginary tooth fairy? which is?

On the subject tho' these monitors are good value for what they do and their clear crisp colors, even at 27" ( there's a broader audience out there that agree with the 30" above screens being perfect for 1440/1600 but not below) screens, so if this article had 2 monitors in review but with screens of 22" diagonals i would had agreed with most complaints here about the full hd resolution but since this is not the case, the rants here on ppl need to stop, ever tried to read text on a 22" inch screen with full HD? (im doing it right now) if so, i suggest u think twice before any of u say that 27" is too low for 1080 resolution !

 

[nukemaster]

There's no point reviewing monitors for color accuracy if they are only 1080 pixels... anyone who wants a color accurate monitor is going to need more vertical res.

If someone is happy with a 1080 monitor, they're probably just surfing or watching movies, hardly requiring accurate color rendition.

This wins RETARDED comment of the year.

Since when color has to do with pixel count.

Color accuracy is something I ALWAYS look at even when screens with 1280 x 1024 first came out.

 

[thefitz228]

Bought this aoc i2757fh and truth be told it's good enough for the price. The speakers is garbage coming through with muffled sound. I have an x-mini available so I'm using it atm until I get some better speakers. Basically you get what you payed for and I managed to get the monitor for $350 cad.

 

[Grassy Knoll]

May someone please list the parameters used on the AOC monitor to achieve the results, such settings, there used to be many more pages to the comments with a post by the author, however it has been removed i think. thanks in advance.

 

[ubercake]

There's no point reviewing monitors for color accuracy if they are only 1080 pixels... anyone who wants a color accurate monitor is going to need more vertical res.

If someone is happy with a 1080 monitor, they're probably just surfing or watching movies, hardly requiring accurate color rendition.

This wins RETARDED comment of the year.

Since when color has to do with pixel count.

Color accuracy is something I ALWAYS look at even when screens with 1280 x 1024 first came out.

If not THE winner, a close second to many other comments I've seen. Amazing stuff.

 

[John Dorman]

I think in order to appreciate a higher pixel pitch or otherwise lower PPI, you have to have minimal screen door distance in the panel. That is, the physical border around each of the 3 LCD elements per pixel must be as small as possible.

I had an Westinghouse LVM-37w1, which was an ancient 1080p panel from late 2005. It used one of the first large format, 1080p, high quantity panel runs from Chi Mei. The colors were bad (but nothing awful), the matte coating was okay(but left fingerprints like hell), and the motion blur was pretty awful(that did kind of suck). However, the input lag was basically zero and the screen door distance of the pixels was fantastically low.

I don't think I can even describe how redeeming those two things really amounted to being over the 5 years I had the display. My friends preferred playing on a quarter of my panel vs half of another CRT I had when we would do console LAN. Movies looked surprisingly good. It was just such a damned SMOOTH display.

The only thing that can explain it is the tiny screen door distance the panel had. Right off the bat, you have substantially less aliasing from all sources. Color gradients and grayscales appear smoother because your brain has many microns fewer of a ridge between shades to grab onto.

I used to sit absurdly close to that display, like, 2.5 feet. I would NEVER have done that with 95% of the large panels I have seen. The screen door distance is just far too large. When the backlight went out on the Westinghouse, I replaced it with an LG D2342P 3D 23" panel, but it just isn't the same. I sit a bit closer, but I can see pixel edges and aliasing now where I simply could not before.

What matters just as much as raw PPI, in this case 1080p vs 1440p at 27", is the total pixel element area. That thin grid that separates the pixel elements has a measurable area takes up a non trivial proportional of your total display area and obviously is best when taking the smallest proportion. Though I hear about dot pitch all the time, I never hear about active vs inactive dot pitch. A panel with zero inactive dot pitch is going to look strictly better than a panel of equal size and res but with 50% inactive dot pitch.

Thoughts?