AOC I2757Fh And ViewSonic VX2770Smh: Two 27" IPS Monitors

[Marcus52]

[citation][nom]Nintendo Maniac 64[/nom]In other news, Micro Center and Monoprice have 27" monitors @ 2560x1440 for just under $400, both of which are based off the inexpensive 27" Korean monitors but come with a US warranty:Micro Center - AURIA EQ276W 27" IPS LED Monitor @ $399.99Monoprice - 27" IPS LED CrystalPro Monitor WQHD @ $390.60Surely that's the comparison readers really want to see. Get on it Tom's![/citation]

I'll add this company to the list:

http://www.overlordcomputer.com/Default.asp

Which gives you basically a Korean model monitor with a 1-year warranty (and it gives you some other options, too). I have one of the OC versions which is running at 120Hz; very nice screen. My main complaint about it is that it makes the heavy anti-glare on my Dell U2711 look bad, heh.

The monitors in this review are a step up in that they are IPS, but like so many have said, we should tell the industry we don't want them by not buying them; it's time to move on to something better, and the existence of the Korean monitors at the price they are at proves without any question that better can be had for little or no more cost than the 1080 screens.

 

[disolitude]

And neither have a f***ing VESA mount... Next!

 

[alidan]

i have a question for anyone who knows...

what is the difference between a low adobergb and a high one.
i have a SyncMaster T240HD and i cant find an adobeRGB number so i cant even understand a base reference.

and if i go to a store, monitors are calibrated so poorly that i cant see a difference either.

long story short, a monitor im planning to get boats something around 92-97% and i have no refrence for how good that is or what it would even look like considering my monitor, which is probably less than 60% looks just fine.

if someone could explain that to me that would be awesome.

 

[ceberle]

Hello Everyone,

I'd like to introduce myself, I'm Christian Eberle, a new writer here at Tom's. I've been brought on to review displays, and I'm planning to have regular articles posted from here on out. While I'm new to this beat, I have been reviewing and working on displays of all kinds for the past seven years at other publications. I've been going over your comments so far and I will try to get some of the monitors mentioned here in for review. I'm game to test anything so please keep the requests coming and I'll do my best to accomodate.

alidan, to answer your question: the two major Adobe color gamuts are sRGB which most monitors and TVs conform to. It's the same as Rec 709 or HDTV. The other is Adobe RGB 1998. This is a much larger (about 30% larger) gamut supported by high-end pro monitors. If you do a lot of graphics and photo work, a large-gamut screen is for you. For gaming and video content, sRGB is more appropriate. A monitor that displays more of the 1998 gamut is not necessarily better unless you need that extra color capability. And be careful when reading specs on percentages. A monitor that displays 92-97% of the sRGB gamut is nothing special. The vast majority of screens out there will do that. If it displays 92-97% of RGB 1998, that's more rare (and more expensive!).

Thanks for reading and thanks for the comments.

 

[tykus]

60 hz is just not enough.. =( 120 should be the standard.

 

[freggo]

" pair of 27-inch, LED-lit, 1080p displays...'"

1080p.... and the reading is done.

Is this THG or TTG (Tom's TV Guide) ?

 

[alidan]

Hello Everyone,

I'd like to introduce myself, I'm Christian Eberle, a new writer here at Tom's. I've been brought on to review displays, and I'm planning to have regular articles posted from here on out. While I'm new to this beat, I have been reviewing and working on displays of all kinds for the past seven years at other publications. I've been going over your comments so far and I will try to get some of the monitors mentioned here in for review. I'm game to test anything so please keep the requests coming and I'll do my best to accomodate.

alidan, to answer your question: the two major Adobe color gamuts are sRGB which most monitors and TVs conform to. It's the same as Rec 709 or HDTV. The other is Adobe RGB 1998. This is a much larger (about 30% larger) gamut supported by high-end pro monitors. If you do a lot of graphics and photo work, a large-gamut screen is for you. For gaming and video content, sRGB is more appropriate. A monitor that displays more of the 1998 gamut is not necessarily better unless you need that extra color capability. And be careful when reading specs on percentages. A monitor that displays 92-97% of the sRGB gamut is nothing special. The vast majority of screens out there will do that. If it displays 92-97% of RGB 1998, that's more rare (and more expensive!).

Thanks for reading and thanks for the comments.

ok, trying to wrap my head around it, so most monitors conform to the two easier standards, and Adobe RGB 1998 is 30% larger, ok, i'm with it so far.

the numbers on that page are for the adobe rgb 1998 are between 67.7 and 97.7
so that brings up another question. how are those numbers gotten? does it start at the beginning of the Adobe RGB 1998 scale, or the beginning of the scale completely. as in they get 67~% of the total scale, or 67~% of the adobe specific specification, which would be something around an improvement of 20% more onto the specifications it already met...

sorry if this sounds confusing, the way i write tends to make far more sense in my head.

on a side note, you are saying you are game to test anything...

i vote for the wacom lineup.
im sure allot of people here would at least be interested in it, and than there are people like me who are looking into buying one, for me specifically, the 24inch hd non touch.

because you cant test those in stores or really even see them, people interested are forced to trust reviews, and for the most part, they are always glowing reviews, but you always see complaints about them in the comments when they are allowed.

 

[Guest]

1080p 27 inch is like 1024x768 on a 20", crazy stupid.. 2560x1440 or better, then we talk.. Loved 27" 2560x1440 screen I had, wish I had not sold it.. going back to 1080p is not fun..

 

[godfather666]

I have a 27 inch 1080p monitor, and I find the resolution very satisfying.

And no, I am not legally blind

Sure, I'd rather have a 1440p one, but it's really not as bad as you think. Not at all.

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]gearbhall[/nom]I agree. The decision to spend more then $300-$400 on a 1600p display is going to bite people in the ass when the 4k displays roll out.[/citation]

for me, a monitor has to be about 100dpi, a 4k at 100dpi would be about 48 inches. im sure that they will make ones that size, but here is the thing

4k gaming... not going to happen for a long time. i mean one high end card, and even 2 cards have trouble playing games even at 2560x1600, let alone if someone moves that over to 4k
4240000
and 4k is
7957440
but lets go a more comparable
3840x2400 (4k 16:10)
9,216,000

you would need twice the current high end power at least. realistically you are looking at about 6 to 8 years out for a mid range card even coming close to dealing with that.

now if you want that 4k screen to be smaller and scale the ui, than it kind of loses it purpose for increased productivity. the only application where a 4k monitor would be useful outside of a 48 inch screen would be photo editing

[citation][nom]Solamar[/nom]1080p 27 inch is like 1024x768 on a 20", crazy stupid.. 2560x1440 or better, then we talk.. Loved 27" 2560x1440 screen I had, wish I had not sold it.. going back to 1080p is not fun..[/citation]

again personal preference here, but at 27 inches, that would be on the lower end of dpi i find acceptable, but its still not bad. 81.59 dpi is what it comes to. your example came to 60 which i do believe is to low to be acceptable. you also have to imagine that for some people, their computer is their media center.

i have access to a 52 inch tv, but i prefer all my media on my pc, as i have better sound, and i believe a better display, also have fast access to my computer, and so on. looking at a 27inch from more than sitting at the pc distance would be nice.

 

[ceberle]

ok, trying to wrap my head around it, so most monitors conform to the two easier standards, and Adobe RGB 1998 is 30% larger, ok, i'm with it so far.

the numbers on that page are for the adobe rgb 1998 are between 67.7 and 97.7
so that brings up another question. how are those numbers gotten? does it start at the beginning of the Adobe RGB 1998 scale, or the beginning of the scale completely. as in they get 67~% of the total scale, or 67~% of the adobe specific specification, which would be something around an improvement of 20% more onto the specifications it already met...

We use Gamutvision to calculate gamut volume from the monitor profiles. The profile is created by entering the CIE coordinates (x, y) into a utility called QuickMonitorProfile. We have a generic profile for Adobe RGB 1998 and we compare it to the profile created during our testing. Then we simply divide the measured volume by the Adobe volume to arrive at the percentage.

 

[travish82]

I am now reading this article on a brand new aoc-i2757fh. It is precisely arms length + 3 inches from my body, with the top bezel about 3 inches up from eye level. I had 20/18 vision as of 1 year ago, checked on a follow up visit after lasik surgery. Normally I don't buy things so impulsively, but my livelihood is work on a computer, and $300 is a paltry sum for the primary feedback device I spend 8 hours a day with.

I CAN PROMISE YOU THIS! Anyone telling you that 1080P isn't good enough, or that you will notice the pixels or some such nonsense, is straight up being foolish. (yes, I play Skyrim, LoL, etc.)

BTW Tom's It would be nice if you would kindly post the final calibration numbers that you came to when you did your testing. Us consumers don't have access to the same sophisticated calibration and measurement equipment that you do. Yes, yes, yes, I understand that each monitor has its own nuances and that "results may vary," but it would be helpful for those of us who are simply interested in getting the best display experience without having to learn what color gamut and contrast ratio mean.

Thanks!

 

[ct001]

Are these true 8-bit IPS panels, or 6-bit?

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]ceberle[/nom]We use Gamutvision to calculate gamut volume from the monitor profiles. The profile is created by entering the CIE coordinates (x, y) into a utility called QuickMonitorProfile. We have a generic profile for Adobe RGB 1998 and we compare it to the profile created during our testing. Then we simply divide the measured volume by the Adobe volume to arrive at the percentage.[/citation]

ok thanks, i think i get it...

 

[ceberle]

Are these true 8-bit IPS panels, or 6-bit?

They are true 8-bit panels. In fact they are the same panel, manufactured by LG.

 

[ceberle]

BTW Tom's It would be nice if you would kindly post the final calibration numbers that you came to when you did your testing. Us consumers don't have access to the same sophisticated calibration and measurement equipment that you do. Yes, yes, yes, I understand that each monitor has its own nuances and that "results may vary," but it would be helpful for those of us who are simply interested in getting the best display experience without having to learn what color gamut and contrast ratio mean.

Thanks!

Here are the final settings we arrived at:

Eco Mode - Standard
Contrast - 50
Brightness - 70
Gamma - Gamma 1
DCR - Off
Overdrive - Medium
DCB Mode - Off
Color Temp - User
Red - 49
Green - 49
Blue - 45

This should get your max output just under 200 cd/m2 with a white point of 6500 Kelvins, give or take a nit.

 

[ct001]

They are true 8-bit panels. In fact they are the same panel, manufactured by LG.

Its my understanding that LG makes 6, 8, and 10 bit versions of the AH-IPS panels. How do you know that these are the 8 bit?

 

[ubercake]

[citation][nom]Nintendo Maniac 64[/nom]In other news, Micro Center and Monoprice have 27" monitors @ 2560x1440 for just under $400, both of which are based off the inexpensive 27" Korean monitors but come with a US warranty:Micro Center - AURIA EQ276W 27" IPS LED Monitor @ $399.99Monoprice - 27" IPS LED CrystalPro Monitor WQHD @ $390.60Surely that's the comparison readers really want to see. Get on it Tom's![/citation]
That AURIA is junk though. I tried it. The contrast is worse than my Acer HN274H. Terrible for fps gaming due to the input lag as well.

 

[ubercake]

I'd like to see the input lag compared to TFTs in the same article.

 

[nukemaster]

I can't load the pictures where I'm at, but I don't notice the glow much. All IPS panels have some degree of "glow" with off-angle blacks but honestly the black levels are much better on this Auria than on my old ASUS VH242H & Hannspree HF289H TN panels that it was plenty to impress me. I only notice the black glow at relatively extreme angles; never during use.

Thanks for the input, Always was under the impression with an a-TW polarizer, you would not have this kind of glow.

Either way, Will be a sad day when my trusty SyncMaster 245t(While not perfect has done very well over the years) dies.

 

[LEXX911]

I'm getting sick tired with these computer monitors price rigging and shit. It's either IPS or 120Hz. Why the hell not just make a mainstream IPS with a 120Hz version already?

 

[OntarioHero]

Error in the article: There's no such thing as "Adobe sRGB". sRGB is not Adobe's.

 

[mapesdhs]

I don't know how people can stand the 1080 height of typical monitors when doing tasks like
web browsing. I find the lack of vertical height really annoying. Upgrading from a 22" CRT
which could do 2048x1536, buying a 1200 height screen was essential for me. 1440 or more
would have been nice, but the prices at the time (couple of years ago) were way more than
I could afford (800+ UKP). So I chose a middle ground, an HP LP2475W H-IPS 24" 1920x1200,
and I love it to bits; a decision made largely on this review, after much info hunting in general:

http://www.trustedreviews.com/HP-LP2475w---24in-H-IPS-Display_Monitor_review

It was about 450 UKP back then. Similar screens are a tad more than half as much now, though
with fewer features, connections, etc. The Dell U2412M is pretty decent; I bought one to replace
my SGI 1600SW and have recommended it to many others.

People who say they're happy with 1080 just haven't tried something better IMO.

If you like old school though, I have an SGI/Sony 24" Superwide CRT in my garage (ex-Smoke
studio suite). It would have been about $4K when new, and ye gods it's heavy. 1920x1200
native, but it'll handle all sorts of other formats aswell. That's the down side of a lot of modern
flat panels, the lack of support for features such as sync-on-green (one of the good things about
the HP, it supports such extras nicely).

Ian.

 

[ubercake]

[citation][nom]BigMack70[/nom]Why were you buying one of those panels if you're sensitive to input lag? There are very few models of hi-res IPS panel that are even decent, let alone good, for FPS gaming for someone who is sensitive to input lag or mediocre response times.Doesn't make the Auria junk - it makes the Auria junk for you and your needs. I find the contrast excellent and am not sensitive to the input lag at all since I'm not a competitive FPS gamer (I play FPS games just not at any sort of 'competitive' level).[/citation]
Wasn't just the lag, it was the poor contrast on a monitor that is supposed to sport superior contrast. No matter what the setting, I couldn't get the contrast to a point where it equaled the quality of the TFT monitor. This is a problem with the quality of the Auria monitor. That's what makes it junk. IPS monitors are supposed to provide superior contrast/superior color. The color and contrast were better on my TFT. This is why it went back to the store the same day I brought it home. Though I did like the extra real estate on screen, I was not impressed with the Auria at all. The Auria didn't hold a candle to my TFT or any Apple IPS monitor I've used.

There's definitely a reason you pay less for some things and more for others. I have to relearn this fact every so often. Just because it only costs $300-$400 doesn't really mean it's a deal in the case of the Auria monitor.

 

[voltagetoe]

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