btarunr... a native resolution of 2560 x 1440 pixels.

:eek: :toast: :rockout:

The average 24 inch display can be had for less than 300$. Why does 3 more inches add the price of 4 more monitors ? with that money I could buy a high end eyefinity card and three Asus 120hz monitors.

RegenwealdThe average 24 inch display can be had for less than 300$. Why does 3 more inches add the price of 4 more monitors ? with that money I could buy a high end eyefinity card and three Asus 120hz monitors.

Because:

The display uses an IPS panel that gives 97 percent Adobe RGB palette coverage

Far better quality screen with better colour reproduction. Those cheap $300 monitors are TN panels, which are very poor for accurate colour reproduction.

Yet that is still over twice the price of a 24" IPS monitor. The 27' and 30" markup is still much too high.

human_errorBecause:



Far better quality screen with better colour reproduction. Those cheap $300 monitors are TN panels, which are very poor for accurate colour reproduction.

Bought a Dell U2410 for $300 mind you, plus the U3011 and U2710 cost significantly less than what they're asking.

cf or led?

This has a 97% RGB palette coverage + a resolution of 2560x1440 on 27" (great pixel pitch). IPS screen, and 6ms is pretty fast for IPS.

This is the top end 27" monitor, it is supposed to be expensive

laszlocf or led?

160W max / 64W average?

translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eizo.co.jp%2Fproducts%2Flcd%2Fsx2762whx%2Findex.html

Some simple logic. Seems I disagree with some of you on price vs worth :)

RegenwealdThe average 24 inch display can be had for less than 300$. Why does 3 more inches add the price of 4 more monitors ?

Because those 24" displays apart from not being IPS panels also do not render at 2560x1440 pixels.

_____________________

I still consider this Eizo to be quite expensive though. The Dell U2711 has got the same specs (unless I missed out something) and retails for 2/3 of the price.

Edit: The Dell gets 96% RGB which is 1% less than the Eizo. That's the only difference I found.

RegenwealdSome simple logic. Seems I disagree with some of you on price vs worth :)

TFT isn't IPS.... It's like saying, why is a Bugatti Veyron Supersport 1.7 million euros when at 15 000 euros I can get a Honda Civic

The combination of 27" 2560x1440, IPS, 6ms response time, and 97% RGB owns the shit out of 99.99% of all monitors

RegenwealdSome simple logic. Seems I disagree with some of you on price vs worth :)

it's a professional monitor. something you'd plug in a quadro/firepro vga card. now go :eek: at their prices.

Nice I like the resolution, and it seems to be quality, but for over $1,500 I expect a USB 3 hub, and HDMI, not crappy display port!

most high end monitors use DP IIRC

n-stermost high end monitors use DP IIRC

How hard would it have been to add a HDMI port, but I would rather use the DVI, over DP.

Obviously still an 8-bit monitor. Wide gamut for the lose.

pr0n InspectorObviously still an 8-bit monitor. Wide gamut for the lose.

What makes you say that? This monitor has hardware calibration support and works internally with a 12-Bit LUT so that should not be a problem. Besides, 'wide gamut' means that there is a large color space (deeper reds, deeper blues etc.), not necessarily more colors (in terms of color count).

By the way, have you ever tried to enable 10-Bit color support in Windows/Linux/MacOS? It's definitely not that easy... First you need a professional graphics card (Quadro/FirePro etc.), none of the consumer cards (GTX 580 / HD 6970 etc.) support that. Second you need software that support 10-Bit Deep Color (like Photoshop). Best case is that your normal applications without Deep Color support work like they used to (eventually a bit slower), worst case is they don't work at all because they don't support rendering at 10-Bit (30-/40-Bit). I have a Dell U3011 wich has 10-Bit color support and i have tried that... :)

The problem with the new Eizo is that it is a 16:9 aspect. Noone is going to pay this much just to watch movies and for content creation it is just too wide with a too small dot pitch (at least for windows until microsoft implements proper dpi-scaling).

Breit... and for content creation it is just too wide with a too small dot pitch (at least for windows until microsoft implements proper dpi-scaling).

Tell me about it. I have a 27 inches with a lower 1200p resolution, and still I have problems with to small text, windows, apps inside icons and stuff...

TAViXTell me about it. I have a 27 inches with a lower 1200p resolution, and still I have problems with to small text, windows, apps inside icons and stuff...

...and yet you have a monitor with just the largest dot pitch one can have in a conventional display with about 0.303 mm/pixel (~84dpi). The new EIZO by the way is 0.2331 mm/pixel (~109dpi). :eek:

[H]@RD5TUFFHow hard would it have been to add a HDMI port, but I would rather use the DVI, over DP.

wtf, DP is more flexible have higher bandwith, so it can support 3D, without to be limited to 24 FPS, and more simple and the best part is you can use it for free.

TAViXTell me about it. I have a 27 inches with a lower 1200p resolution, and still I have problems with to small text, windows, apps inside icons and stuff...

Er, right click desktop, properties, settings, advanced, set 120dpi.

Er, right click desktop, appearance, effect, select large icons.

Get a beer. Enjoy.

Already at 120 dpi, thank you. Already at second beer, thank you very much ;)
I was talking about the icons in programs like AutoCAD, Maya, 3DS, iDEAS, CADceus, etc, etc, that don't scale well with high dpi settings.
Also the stupid text books like the ones Cisco have for study. They are written in flash, java, whatever, and you cannot make the text bigger at all. Not even by increasing dpi.....
But the most important thing is that I keep the screen at least half of meter from my eyes. I still don't need glasses, but that can change if I stay to close to the screen to read crappy small text....

wahdangunwtf, DP is more flexible have higher bandwith, so it can support 3D, without to be limited to 24 FPS, and more simple and the best part is you can use it for free.

3D content is FAIL, and expensive, also I have 0 interest in 3D, it needs to go away so I can have thinner 30" monitors for for $300-$400.

[H]@RD5TUFF3D content is FAIL, and expensive, also I have 0 interest in 3D, it needs to go away so I can have thinner 30" monitors for for $300-$400.

why don't you get yourself a 36" or 42" tv-screen and hook it up to your pc via hdmi? i bet you'll find one for around $400... if you are lucky, these screens even can't do 3d! :cool:

good luck with the whole quality vs. cheapness thing... :rolleyes:

BreitWhat makes you say that? This monitor has hardware calibration support and works internally with a 12-Bit LUT so that should not be a problem. Besides, 'wide gamut' means that there is a large color space (deeper reds, deeper blues etc.), not necessarily more colors (in terms of color count).

By the way, have you ever tried to enable 10-Bit color support in Windows/Linux/MacOS? It's definitely not that easy... First you need a professional graphics card (Quadro/FirePro etc.), none of the consumer cards (GTX 580 / HD 6970 etc.) support that. Second you need software that support 10-Bit Deep Color (like Photoshop). Best case is that your normal applications without Deep Color support work like they used to (eventually a bit slower), worst case is they don't work at all because they don't support rendering at 10-Bit (30-/40-Bit). I have a Dell U3011 wich has 10-Bit color support and i have tried that... :)

The problem with the new Eizo is that it is a 16:9 aspect. Noone is going to pay this much just to watch movies and for content creation it is just too wide with a too small dot pitch (at least for windows until microsoft implements proper dpi-scaling).

8-bit + large gamut = fairly obvious banding(even worse after calibration and profiling).

A high-bit LUT can only increase the conversion precision, won't magically make the actual panel more capable but I do admit it's very useful when coupled with a real 10-bit panel.

Also, in marketing speak color gamut is only a percentage, which only tells you the volume, not the full shape or position of it.

DisplayPort 1.2 provides enough bandwidth at 2560x1600@10bpc@60hz. Windows 7 supports 10bpc. Consumer ATI cards have been confirmed to be able to work at 10bpc on Mac OS X. What's muddy is the driver support for Windows as all modern cards clearly support "10-bit deep color" for HDMI.