NEC Intros MultiSync PA271W 27-inch 1440p Professional Display

[btarunr]

NEC released a new professional display, the MultiSync PA271W. Its 27-inch panel has an aspect ratio of 16:9, with a native resolution of 2560 x 1440 pixels. The 10-bit IPS panel is capable of covering 97.1 percent of AdobeRGB colour space. Other important specifications include panel response time of 7 ms (GTG), static contrast ratio of 1000:1, maximum brightness of 300 cd/m², and inputs which include DVI and DisplayPort.

The display has 15 cm height-adjustable stand, which allows the panel to pivot, swivel, and tilt. With its dual inputs, the display offers picture-in-picture and picture-by-picture features. The AmbiBright feature senses ambient lighting conditions and adjusts the display's brightness automatically. Backed by a 4-year warranty, the NEC MultiSync PA271W sells for US $1,649.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[rpsgc]

Ohhh... if only I had the money.

 

[Lipton]

Ohhh... if it only was 16:10

 

[rpsgc]

Ohhh... if it only was 16:10

Better get used to it. 16:10 monitors are going the way of the dodo.

 

[Lipton]

Better get used to it. 16:10 monitors are going the way of the dodo.

Never.

 

[to6ko91]

would rather get the Dell 27" UltraSharp

 

[Mussels]

Never.

also, XP is dead. and vader is lukes father.



This screen looks quite good, its definitely where the future is heading.

 

[Lipton]

also, XP is dead. and vader is lukes father.



This screen looks quite good, its definitely where the future is heading.

16:10 > 16:9.
7 > XP.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

Actually 24" 16:9 is going the way of the dodo with this release
So now they try something different, hmm....NO! Not at that price they don't

 

[Mussels]

16:10 is long dead, it only ever existed to re-use 4:3 1600x1200 manufacturing plants.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

With companies like Dell releasing their UltraSharp 24" U2410 which is 16:10 it ain't dead at all
They are just relabeling...

 

[Lipton]

I want and need those extra 10% for professional displays. I don't get this 16:9 trend other than to save money since it's physically fewer pixels.

16:9 may be the future for cheap mass-market use, but I don't see it as a better future for people like me who need all the pixel real-estate I can get and I cry blood every time I see a "professional" 16:9 monitor. Luckily there are still some 16:10 quality panels being made.

 

[AsRock]

7ms GTG aint that kinda slow ?.

Anyways at that price i'd get a 50" TV or even this MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC 60" DLP which is also 12bit as well not as if you notice but still.
MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC 60" DLP 120Hz Rear Projection...

And still have change

 

[Mussels]

I want and need those extra 10% for professional displays. I don't get this 16:9 trend other than to save money since it's physically fewer pixels.

16:9 may be the future for cheap mass-market use, but I don't see it as a better future for people like me who need all the pixel real-estate I can get and I cry blood every time I see a "professional" 16:9 monitor. Luckily there are still some 16:10 quality panels being made.

16:10 never should have existed, it only did to make use of existing machinery. it was just a cheap out method to save money while they made 16:9 equipment...

the argument that 16:9 is meant to charge more for less is outright silly, when 16:9 screens cost less, and 16:10 was the cost cutting measure...

oh and dont use this screen for an example, or if you do, find me a 27" 2560x1600 S-IPS 16:10 with displayport, kthx.

 

[OnBoard]

I'll change my 16:10 1680x1050 for a 16:9 1920x1080 What no takers!

Nice display, but no LED backlight, maybe IPS has better blacks.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

7ms GTG aint that kinda slow ?.

Anyways at that price i'd get a 50" TV or even this MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC 60" DLP which is also 12bit as well not as if you notice but still.
MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC 60" DLP 120Hz Rear Projection...

And still have change

Viewing Angle 89º/89º/89º/89º
Delivers wide viewing angles of up to 178º horizontally and vertically (up to 89º up, down, left and right) with less color shift and without any glare, reflection or distortion.

And, I do not see any HDMI ports and they want to charge a premium for crap, told you!

 

[AsRock]

Hell NO!!!!! They want to charge a premium for crap, told you!

LOL always find those viewing angles funny. My sammy supposed to be the same as my toshiba and the toshiba you can actually watch it near side on were as the sammy a few inches of either left or right the picture changes badly.

Look at one of those MITSUBISHI in a shop first before knocking it.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

LOL always find those viewing angles funny. My sammy supposed to be the same as my toshiba and the toshiba you can actually watch it near side on were as the sammy a few inches of either left or right the picture changes badly.

Look at one of those MITSUBISHI in a shop first before knocking it.

We are talking about monitors not HDTV. Take note that in their marketing speech they say "up to". The HDTVs I've looked at never say they. They simply tell you the viewing angle. The only time I see up to is when trying to find out the speed of an internet provider. And if congress has it's way that will change also because they consider it misleading...I digress...

 

[Wile E]

16:10 never should have existed, it only did to make use of existing machinery. it was just a cheap out method to save money while they made 16:9 equipment...

the argument that 16:9 is meant to charge more for less is outright silly, when 16:9 screens cost less, and 16:10 was the cost cutting measure...

oh and dont use this screen for an example, or if you do, find me a 27" 2560x1600 S-IPS 16:10 with displayport, kthx.

Wrong. They had to retool for 16:10 anyway.

And when comparing 16:10 to 16:9, you don't go by the same diagonal measurements. 27" 16:9 ≠ 27" 16:10 in terms of screen real estate. I'd rather have a 30" S-IPS 2560x1600 panel than this.

Regardless, 16:10 is still the better and more versatile format. We've had this discussion before, and the only downside you can find to 16:10 is the black bars in 16:9 content. Not much of a real downside, tbh.

I am glad, however, to see that they are using a proper panel in these. I hate Tn-Film.

And, I do not see any HDMI ports and they want to charge a premium for crap, told you!

Don't need HDMI on a monitor that doesn't carry sound. They charge a premium for the high quality panel. IPS does do 178 viewing angles.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

Don't need HDMI on a monitor that doesn't carry sound. They charge a premium for the high quality panel. IPS does do 178 viewing angles.

That's not the point. If they want that kind of price for the monitor it should include all the bells and whistles. And it does read "up to" so it does not mean 178 view angles. Only up to 178º horizontally and vertically (up to 89º up, down, left and right).

 

[Wile E]

That's not the point. If they want that kind of price for the monitor it should include all the bells and whistles. And it does read "up to" so it does not mean 178 view angles. Only up to 178º horizontally and vertically (up to 89º up, down, left and right).

Doesn't matter what it means. It absolutely does it. A poor choice of wording on their part doesn't change the fact that the viewing angles are, in fact, 178º, plain and simple. Not sure where you are going by pointing out the 89º part, but all of your "guaranteed" 178º panels that you are referring to are also 89º in all 4 directions. That's the way viewing angles measurements are taken.

And this is a professional display, not a standard consumer display, thus the price. It is set up to be color accurate, not oversaturated like most consumer level monitors. I can show you 24" models that carry an even higher price tag than this. The price is plenty fair for the market segment it is intended for.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

Doesn't matter what it means. It absolutely does it. A poor choice of wording on their part doesn't change the fact that the viewing angles are, in fact, 178º, plain and simple. Not sure where you are going by pointing out the 89º part, but all of your "guaranteed" 178º panels that you are referring to are also 89º in all 4 directions. That's the way viewing angles measurements are taken.

And this is a professional display, not a standard consumer display, thus the price. It is set up to be color accurate, not oversaturated like most consumer level monitors. I can show you 24" models that carry an even higher price tag than this. The price is plenty fair for the market segment it is intended for.

Haha, don't get mad and make things up they clearly state "up to". There is a clear reason for it and it certainly has nothing to do with your pseudo explanation. Furthermore, at that price range it should include all the known bells and whistles for it. As for the professional vs standard that's another one of your pseudo blathering. No one indicated that the monitor was intended for any standard use. Whatever that suppose to mean LOL. The fact of the matter remains the same, it's a over price 16:9 monitor with up to standard viewing angle for that panel and limited inputs. If you want to think of it as "professional" that's up to you but the quality of the monitor is more the questionable.

BTW:

I want and need those extra 10% for professional displays. I don't get this 16:9 trend other than to save money since it's physically fewer pixels.

16:9 may be the future for cheap mass-market use, but I don't see it as a better future for people like me who need all the pixel real-estate I can get and I cry blood every time I see a "professional" 16:9 monitor. Luckily there are still some 16:10 quality panels being made.

Indicates that at least he's aware that it's a professional monitor. Anything else?

 

[Wile E]

Haha, don't get mad and make things up they clearly state "up to". There is a clear reason for it and it certainly has nothing to do with your pseudo explanation. Furthermore, at that price range it should include all the known bells and whistles for it. As for the professional vs standard that's another one of your pseudo blathering. No one indicated that the monitor was intended for any standard use. Whatever that suppose to mean LOL. The fact of the matter remains the same, it's a over price 16:9 monitor with up to standard viewing angle for that panel and limited inputs. If you want to think of it as "professional" that's up to you but the quality of the monitor is more the questionable.

Im not upset. And sorry, but you are wrong on the viewing angles here. IPS panel do 178º viewing angles, period. No ifs, ands or buts about it. It doesn't matter what the press release says, it's a physical trait of H-IPS panel used in this monitor.

As far as price being too high, again, the pro market monitors are all high priced like this. If they did indeed price it too high, then I guess it will fail on the market untill they lower the price, so I won't bother arguing the point anymore. The market will decide if it's priced to high.

 

[CDdude55]

Damn that's an expensive monitor.

Would still get it if i had the cash.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

Im not upset. And sorry, but you are wrong on the viewing angles here. IPS panel do 178º viewing angles, period. No ifs, ands or buts about it. It doesn't matter what the press release says, it's a physical trait of H-IPS panel used in this monitor.

As far as price being too high, again, the pro market monitors are all high priced like this. If they did indeed price it too high, then I guess it will fail on the market untill they lower the price, so I won't bother arguing the point anymore. The market will decide if it's priced to high.

Ah, I see, you want to talk about a IPS panel (which ever one you decide on as the debate continues). I am talking MultiSync PA271W and their description of the monitor's viewing angle. Instead of coming into thread and declaring certain people are wrong why not chillout? Saying your not upset doesn't mean you aren't. When you look at how you reply to people it comes off as this caption. Ultimately, the viewing angle is how they are describing their monitor. There is nothing wrong in their description. We need to see why they described it as such not argue with me for pointing it out.