Now this is good stuff no remarks at all, pricing is subjective i guess here.

kastriotNow this is good stuff no remarks at all, pricing is subjective i guess here.

agreed, I want to see more of this type of stuff, just go all out with it and then soon(tm) bring the price down a tad.

I just hope the proximity sensor is IR or some other tech, the visible red ones on my BenQ BL3200 make the feature unusable as the lights flash constantly when enabled which is way too distracting.

I wonder when it will appear, the price is not "outrageous" compared to some on the market at the moment with an inferior spec.

This is now at the top of my list, although a 32 - 40" would be better for the desk.

Can't wait until these bad boys are £350 or so. Roll on 2025.

You/we'll be wanting 8k 200Hz and 100% of Rec. 2020 by then so the price will still be high. ;)

I'll be wanting it alright and btw you need a bigger desk :).

Any word about local dimming zones? Nice monitor/TV for fair price I would say.

Though that 144Hz is just marketing gimmick with current displayport standards. It is really 120Hz SDR 8bit monitor or 98Hz 10bit HDR monitor there's not enough bandwidth to drive 144Hz UHD resolution with 10/8bit colors.

This peaks my interest. This and the ASUS xg438q both seem to be exactly what I've been waiting for.

Just wish the bezels were smaller and it was IPS. But I guess we gotta start somewhere.

jabbadapAny word about local dimming zones? Nice monitor/TV for fair price I would say.

Though that 144Hz is just marketing gimmick with current displayport standards. It is really 120Hz SDR 8bit monitor or 98Hz 10bit HDR monitor there's not enough bandwidth to drive 144Hz UHD resolution with 10/8bit colors.

I suspect they'd have mentioned if this had FALD... it would be a huge selling point. And while this is hardly cheap, I think it would be far more expensive if it did have FALD.

And yes, 144Hz is somewhat of a gimmick, but it will achieve it... just at the expense of chroma sub-sampling, as was the case with the PG27UQ and X27. In gaming though, this shouldn't be noticeable.

8-bit vs 10-bit? Valid, but again in games, even with HDR (in the absence of FALD)... I don't know... this is first 1000-nit display I've seen without FALD, so it will be interesting to see how it does.

I suspect the HDR part of this isn't going to be worth much to be honest.

But the rest, yum

It's a much better TV than the one I have now, but at over 5 times the price it had better be.

Vayra86I suspect the HDR part of this isn't going to be worth much to be honest.

At 1000-nit, it will do a better job than many HDR 400 monitors, but even some of the better examples of those do show a slight improvement over SDR. So this one should have decent HDR performance... the question mark is over the lack of FALD (which there is no suggestion it will have), and this is the first display I'm aware of to have a 1000-nit panel and no FALD. Whatever the backlight solution is, it will be interesting to see what the results are.

Exactly which "adaptive sync" pretty please?

PS
Would consider it if it was priced under 1k.

Not that expensive, considering the specs, but I have two nits to pick:
1. This being an Acer, will it be suitable for color critical work?
2. This being a combination of VA and 43", won't VA's black crush make the image look weird? Because, you know, monitors connected to PCs aren't typically watched from 1m/3.3' or more away.

Acer is killing it with this and the new ConceptD line. Good for them!

bugNot that expensive, considering the specs, but I have two nits to pick:
1. This being an Acer, will it be suitable for color critical work?
2. This being a combination of VA and 43", won't VA's black crush make the image look weird? Because, you know, monitors connected to PCs aren't typically watched from 1m/3.3' or more away.

1.) It's a VA panel so no. I've never seen a VA panel suitable for this... there is simply not enough coverage of the necessary colour space, not for actual colour critical work. You need calibrated IPS for that.
2.) At 43", about 1m away is the closest you can really get... any closer would be too close for most.

atomicus1.) It's a VA panel so no. I've never seen a VA panel suitable for this... there is simply not enough coverage of the necessary colour space, not for actual colour critical work. You need calibrated IPS for that.

I have never seen evidence VA doesn't cover the same gamut IPS does. And VA has better contrast, so it can do HDR easier than IPS can. On top of that, if you're targeting the web, your colour critical work is confined to sRGB anyway.

atomicus2.) At 43", about 1m away is the closest you can really get... any closer would be too close for most.

Still doesn't answer whether black crush is an issue or not. It's a simple question, but I've never looked at a 43" monitor and I don't have access to one so I can't find the answer myself.

Looks good to me once the price comes down out of the stratosphere,......

I like this Monitor, hope its available in India soon.

bugI have never seen evidence VA doesn't cover the same gamut IPS does. And VA has better contrast, so it can do HDR easier than IPS can. On top of that, if you're targeting the web, your colour critical work is confined to sRGB anyway.

Still doesn't answer whether black crush is an issue or not. It's a simple question, but I've never looked at a 43" monitor and I don't have access to one so I can't find the answer myself.

VA doesn't... there is no panel which covers same gamut as a quality IPS panel, not that I've ever seen. There is no reason to think the one used here will be any different, as it's simply a limit of the technology. If you are SERIOUS professional who needs a monitor for REAL colour critical work (which would be PRINT only, as you imply) you would never choose VA. For the average hobbyist photographer/graphic designer, or for anyone who works purely for web/digital, it won't make any difference.

For HDR, no question VA will be superior due to the better contrast. Saying that, the lack of FALD here isn't ideal, so it will be interesting to see how a 1000-nit panel does without it. I believe this is the first 1000-nit panel without it, unless there's some TV's out there I'm not aware of.

No idea if black crush will be a problem... that will be down to the individual characteristics of this panel. I think the 60hz 43" 4K panel Acer had in the ET430K was actually pretty decent, but this won't be that one. We've never seen this one in a monitor before, so we'll have to wait and see how it turns out. Hopefully it's a good one. One potential concern is if there will be any blur/overshoot, which is always an issue with most VA panels.

Solid start, positive direction. I'm not a big fan of VA panels after having a 43" 4K 60Hz IPS the past several years, but I'll take it still.

atomicusVA doesn't... there is no panel which covers same gamut as a quality IPS panel, not that I've ever seen. There is no reason to think the one used here will be any different, as it's simply a limit of the technology. If you are SERIOUS professional who needs a monitor for REAL colour critical work (which would be PRINT only, as you imply) you would never choose VA. For the average hobbyist photographer/graphic designer, or for anyone who works purely for web/digital, it won't make any difference.

For HDR, no question VA will be superior due to the better contrast. Saying that, the lack of FALD here isn't ideal, so it will be interesting to see how a 1000-nit panel does without it. I believe this is the first 1000-nit panel without it, unless there's some TV's out there I'm not aware of.

No idea if black crush will be a problem... that will be down to the individual characteristics of this panel. I think the 60hz 43" 4K panel Acer had in the ET430K was actually pretty decent, but this won't be that one. We've never seen this one in a monitor before, so we'll have to wait and see how it turns out. Hopefully it's a good one. One potential concern is if there will be any blur/overshoot, which is always an issue with most VA panels.

Wth dude?
www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/philips_436m6vbpab.htm
www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/samsung_c32hg70.htm
That's two monitors that do 95% DCI-P3 color space and I found them without even trying.

Also, there's no way this will pass a DisplayHDR certification without local dimming, the "should bring up to HDR 1000 certification" in the original piece is just the author trying to be smart/rake in hits.

bugWth dude?
www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/philips_436m6vbpab.htm
www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/samsung_c32hg70.htm
That's two monitors that do 95% DCI-P3 color space and I found them without even trying.

Also, there's no way this will pass a DisplayHDR certification without local dimming, the "should bring up to HDR 1000 certification" in the original piece is just the author trying to be smart/rake in hits.

Every now and again someone wants to make the argument for VA regards colour accuracy, but fail to realise that no professional worth their salt working in this field to any high level is going to look twice at these monitors, not if they need a dedicated colour accurate display. They aren't terrible, but they are simply not going to get the job done for those people. It's like a pro racing driver buying a car from a showroom/forecourt and taking it straight to a race track. No matter how great a performer that car is, this obviously would never happen. There are dedicated monitors for people who work in this field and need that level of accuracy. Again, I'm not saying the monitors you've linked (and others similar) are bad by any means, they do a perfectly adequate job for the casual layperson, but as I said before, are NOT for a SERIOUS professional. It's pure marketing fluff when manfacturers talk about colour accuracy for monitors such as this one, meaningless for those who REALLY need it.

As for the HDR-1000 certification, Acer are claiming this themselves in their official press release, so it's nothing to do with the author trying get hits lol! I think VESA relaxed their conditions on this, so FALD isn't a requirement, although I don't even know that it ever was in the first place, as I don't actually recall reading so. There is no doubt FALD would be preferred though. Besides, the Philips 436M6VBPAB model you mention above has an HDR-1000 certification, yet has 32-zone edge lit local dimming, and it did a half decent job. The Acer may be using this same solution given it's also 43" of course.

atomicusEvery now and again someone wants to make the argument for VA regards colour accuracy, but fail to realise that no professional worth their salt working in this field to any high level is going to look twice at these monitors, if they need a dedicated colour accurate display. They aren't terrible, but they are simply not going to get the job done for those people. It's like a pro racing driver buying a car from a showroom/forecourt and taking it straight to a race track, no matter how great a performer that car was. Obviously that would never happen. There are dedicated monitors for people who work in this field and need that accuracy, and they don't come cheap. Again, I'm not saying the monitors you've linked (and others similar) are bad by any means, they do a perfectly adequate job for the casual layperson, but as I said before, are NOT for a SERIOUS professional. It's pure marketing fluff when manfacturers talk about colour accuracy for monitors such as this one.

As for the HDR-1000 certification, Acer are claiming this themselves in their official press release. I think VESA relaxed their conditions on this, so FALD isn't a requirement, although I don't even know that it ever was in the first place, as I don't actually recall reading so. There is no doubt FALD would be preferred though.

Yes. You can go on and on and on about how VA isn't suitable for color critical work. It's providing some evidence that you struggle with.

FALD was never a requirement for DisplayHDR certification. But current panels can't reach the required contrast without some form of local dimming.

bugYes. You can go on and on and on about how VA isn't suitable for color critical work. It's providing some evidence that you struggle with.

FALD was never a requirement for DisplayHDR certification. But current panels can't reach the required contrast without some form of local dimming.

Err, because they aren't lol! Show me a VA panel that meets the same specs as this for example... or this... or this... they're all IPS. The poor viewing angles of VA alone mean they are inferior choices for serious dedicated colour accurate work. Again, not terrible, but for those at the top of their field and who work in print, absolutely not. What more evidence do you need lol?! VA monitors undeniably can't do what high end IPS ones can, which do EVERYTHING regards colour accuracy (and viewing angles) better! This isn't rocket science. VA has its merits sure, the increased contrast can make colours more punchy, but accuracy never was or will be their strength... and the viewing angles will always be superior with IPS.

I didn't think this panel wouldn't have local dimming, as I'm certain it will, but I don't think it will have FALD. I suspect it may get the same as the Philips, with the 32-zone edge lit local dimming solution. As stated, Acer are claiming HDR-1000 certification already, so really it must have local dimming in some form or another.