NEC Display Solutions Introduces Corporate Wide Displays with LED Backlight

[btarunr]

With the introduction of the EX series, a high performance, future-ready and ecological range of desktop displays, NEC Display Solutions is extending its portfolio in the corporate market. The new MultiSync EX series combines an innovative, ultra-slim design with high-quality features. The displays impress with their exceptionally low environmental impact thanks to LED backlight technology and other new features such as a human sensor. The EX series is equipped with a DisplayPort and provides outstanding connectivity and many ergonomic benefits that ensure productive work in even the most demanding office environment. NEC Display Solutions is introducing the first model in the new range called "Office Cool" to the market in the shape of its NEC MultiSync EX231W.

First-class quality, excellent performance and stunning design were the key factors guiding the design of the MultiSync EX series. The displays are light in weight and optically very exciting thanks to their slim form and extremely narrow stand. Modern and with minimum space requirements, they can be stylishly integrated into office surroundings. From a technological point of view the series sets new standards with outstanding picture quality in full HD wide format and excellent connectivity with two digital inputs, DisplayPort and DVI-I. Additionally the range also includes a USB interface which can be used to connect a USB camera, ideal for videoconferencing.



Ecologically the new EX series fulfils the rigorous demands of the "NEC Green Vision" campaign. The W-LED backlight reduces power consumption considerably, and the focus during production of the displays is on ecological factors. NEC Display Solutions has dispensed with the use of environmentally damaging substances such as mercury and has significantly reduced the amount of material used with the slim housing. This avoids negative environmental effects in the manufacture, packaging and transport process. The models also feature two types of sensor: the ambient light sensor and the new human sensor. The latter puts the monitor into standby mode as soon as the user moves away from the display. This significantly increases energy efficiency, which at the same time means a considerable cost saving for the user.

The excellent ergonomic features such as height adjustment and the pivot function allow the screen to be adjusted to suit individual needs - it's the perfect office setup. The displays are also easy to install thanks to their light weight, and they are ideal for multi-screen applications. The first model to be introduced in the new range, the MultiSync EX231W, has been awarded the EPEAT Gold Seal and the TCO 5.0 Certificate.

"The NEC MultiSync range carries a tradition of superb image quality, innovation and reliability synonymous with the high MultiSync standard. The EX series with its stunningly innovative product design and future-proof technology sets a new benchmark for the entire industry," says Birgit Sommerer, Product Line Manager for Commercial Displays at NEC Display Solutions Europe.

Availability, price and warranty
The 23-inch NEC MultiSync EX231W will go on sale October and will be available in either pure black or office white at a price of EUR 359.00 (including VAT). NEC Display Solutions Europe offers a three-year warranty including backlights.

View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[Batou1986]

meh i had my hopes up for something larger then 23 inch led backlit

 

[bear jesus]

meh i had my hopes up for something larger then 23 inch led backlit

I have to agree, each time i see a new led backlight monitor on the tpu front page i'm always hoping for 24 to 26 inch at 1920x1200 but i'm always dissapointed.

I'm beginning to hate the term "full HD" as it's just below the min res i want, the only resolutions that really interest me now are 1920x1200 and 2560x1600.

 

[naram-sin]

I have to agree, each time i see a new led backlight monitor on the tpu front page i'm always hoping for 24 to 26 inch at 1920x1200 but i'm always dissapointed.

I'm beginning to hate the term "full HD" as it's just below the min res i want, the only resolutions that really interest me now are 1920x1200 and 2560x1600.

exactly... been looking for relatively newer value 24" screen with 1920*1200... no luck so far... especially with flood of these fullHD screens, as you said... i guess manufacturers can have them cheaper since they have marginally smaller surface, but keep almost similar prices, they charged for "old" 24" 1920*1200 screens... no luck, whatsoever...

 

[bear jesus]

exactly... been looking for relatively newer value 24" screen with 1920*1200... no luck so far... especially with flood of these fullHD screens, as you said... i guess manufacturers can have them cheaper since they have marginally smaller surface, but keep almost similar prices, they charged for "old" 24" 1920*1200 screens... no luck, whatsoever...

I don't know too much about the production of lcd screens but i would assume smaller lower res screens would proberley have a better yield, in a way kind of like silicon chips but as i said i dont really know enough about the production process.

 

[Completely Bonkers]

FAIL. Corporates do not want high x low y screens. In the workplace people READ and WRITE typically in PDF A4 or letter portrait format. People are more efficient scanning shorter lines with great y for topical orientation. In some countries text flows down too. So much productivity time is lost due to scrolling screens, zooming to read, etc.

In the business world people do NOT HDvideo all day long. In fact, they shouldnt be doing that at all in 99.9% of businesses. What on earth are these manufacturers doing creating these silly screens? What is wanted are portrait screens in ultra hi res so that an A4 page can be easily read. IMO, if a screen is as large as an A4, it needs to show the details one could see on an A4. ie. WHERE ARE THE 240 or 300 dpi screens? Where are the screens that can match our DSLR cameras? There are no more excuses that the GPU can't handle hi-res. They can all handle 2560x1600 AND HIGHER with eyefinity etc.

 

[bear jesus]

FAIL. Corporates do not want high x low y screens. In the workplace people READ and WRITE typically in PDF A4 or letter portrait format. People are more efficient scanning shorter lines with great y for topical orientation. In some countries text flows down too. So much productivity time is lost due to scrolling screens, zooming to read, etc.

In the business world people do NOT HDvideo all day long. In fact, they shouldnt be doing that at all in 99.9% of businesses. What on earth are these manufacturers doing creating these silly screens? What is wanted are portrait screens in ultra hi res so that an A4 page can be easily read. IMO, if a screen is as large as an A4, it needs to show the details one could see on an A4. ie. WHERE ARE THE 240 or 300 dpi screens? Where are the screens that can match our DSLR cameras? There are no more excuses that the GPU can't handle hi-res. They can all handle 2560x1600 AND HIGHER with eyefinity etc.

This is one of the major reasons i want a higher res than 1080, i spend a lot of time on the desktop and the more vertical space i have the better for viewing web pages amongst other things.
And game wise as well as i will be going with eyefinity or nvidia surround in the near future so hight per monitor is a very importaint thing when the horizontal res could be 5760 or even 7860.

 

[Completely Bonkers]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphic_display_resolutions

I'm waiting for QSXGA 2560x2048 or QUXGA 3200x2400 in 24"-27" format. I will pay up to $2000 each for them. And I will upgrade 5 workstations in the office to this format.

ARE YOU LISTENING NEC? Pull your finger out and get on with it. I first used dual screen Eizo's 16" IPS 1280x1024 in 2001 giving me 2560x1024. That is 10 years ago. Your new screen is NO UPGRADE OR IMPROVEMENT in 10years!

 

[bear jesus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphic_display_resolutions

I'm waiting for QSXGA 2560x2048 or QUXGA 3200x2400 in 24"-27" format.

I think 2560x2048 or 3200x2400 would be great for an eyfinity/nvidia surround setup (although may be a little tough on the hardware) for gaming although a little unsure for watching video as most things are 16:9 and thats a 5:4 ratio althugh i admit it was never a problem for me before i went widescreen.
But for office/desktop use that would be an amazing res, i would happly pay $2000 for a 30" at 3200x2400 although not too sure if i could fork out the cash for a triple monior setup like that and the hardware to game on it though.. what would that be 2 or 3 g480's and at least a 4ghz i7 plus $6000 just for the monitors

*edit*
After a look on the wiki page i think 3840 x 2400 would be the perfect res as it's my fav aspect ratio 16:10 and an awesome ammount of pixels. Also it pointed me towards a company called eyevis that seams to have some amazing res displays although the refresh rates kind of worry me for gaming (wiki listing 41hz to 48hz at 3840x2400).

Also wow 56" @ 3840 x 2160 from eyevis but no refresh rate on the pdf spec sheet, if it was 60hz i would have just found my new monitor

 

[Completely Bonkers]

Me like your links. But I am still looking for a 24"-27" monitor of similar resolution that will fit on my desk.

For gaming, just run a resolution of 1600x1200 (rather than native 3200x2400). The GPU will cope fine, and the quality will not be any different than a 1600x1200 monitor!

 

[Roph]

I assume 1080 has taken over because of LCD televisions. Widescreen LCD TV production vastly outnumbers the production of widescreen monitors, and nobody wants a 16:10 TV. Thus the panels are built to suit.

Having used both 1920x1200 and 1920x1080, I don't see what the fuss is about.

 

[bear jesus]

Me like your links. But I am still looking for a 24"-27" monitor of similar resolution that will fit on my desk.

For gaming, just run a resolution of 1600x1200 (rather than native 3200x2400). The GPU will cope fine, and the quality will not be any different than a 1600x1200 monitor!

You just reminded me that seting a monitor to a lower res often means it can use a higher refresh rate, my current monitor does 60hz at 1680x1050 but at lower res does 75hz, i wonder if that screen could do 60hz at a slightly lower rez although 1600x1200 is 4:3 aspect ratio and that screen is 16:9 so not really sure what the steps down in res would be for it.

You are right though, it may be a great res display but is hardly useful for most desktops due to shear size, for the most part i dont think there is much use for anything over 30" on a desk

I assume 1080 has taken over because of LCD televisions. Widescreen LCD TV production vastly outnumbers the production of widescreen monitors, and nobody wants a 16:10 TV. Thus the panels are built to suit.

Having used both 1920x1200 and 1920x1080, I don't see what the fuss is about.

Yes there is only 120 pixel difference in vertical res bu when given a choice between 1050 and 1080 most people would choose the second, more is always better but seriously i'm looking at 1200 as being the least, i intend to go to a multi monitor setup and with such a wide view every little bit of extra hight will be very welcome in game's as the more pixels the more i get to see at once.

Those extra 120 pixels in vertical res mean an extra 230,400 pixels on the screen even if it does not seam like much i see that as the min, i would prefer an extra few million pixels on the screen

 

[Completely Bonkers]

Yes, get yourself a screen ruler like: http://www.arulerforwindows.com/download.html

I have a 1600x1200 screen. When you open Word there are just 950 pixels left in the "y" for the text. The rest is used by Word toolbar, and the desktop taskbar. That is, 250 pixels are used by the OS design and application.

If I had just 1050 in the y, that would be just 800 pixels left! For me 950 is not enough! But at least it is 20% better than 800!

With a 1600 in the y, I would have 1350. That is 70% better than a 1080 screen! Nearly double the usable-readable resolution.

***

Another way to look at it is like this: An A4 page is 210mm x 297mm (or roughly 8inch by 11 inch excluding print margins).

If you want to show an A4 page full screen and still have it legible, you need about 150dpi for low quality = 1650 pixels in the y, and 200dpi for good quality = 2200 pixels in the y, and 300dpi for very high quality = 3300 pixels in the y.

And dont forget those 250 pixels needed for the OS and application! Therefore, IMO, you really need that 2400 y TFT screen. And I'm ready to pay for it. The low eyestrain, the time saved zooming and panning, and improved productivity will pay for itself within a few months.

 

[bear jesus]

Yes, get yourself a screen ruler like: http://www.arulerforwindows.com/download.html

I have a 1600x1200 screen. When you open Word there are just 950 pixels left in the "y" for the text. The rest is used by Word toolbar, and the desktop taskbar. That is, 250 pixels are used by the OS design and application.

If I had just 1050 in the y, that would be just 800 pixels left! For me 950 is not enough! But at least it is 20% better than 800!

With a 1600 in the y, I would have 1350. That is 70% better than a 1080 screen! Nearly double the usable-readable resolution.

***

Another way to look at it is like this: An A4 page is 210mm x 297mm (or roughly 8inch by 11 inch excluding print margins).

If you want to show an A4 page full screen and still have it legible, you need about 150dpi for low quality = 1650 pixels in the y, and 200dpi for good quality = 2200 pixels in the y, and 300dpi for very high quality = 3300 pixels in the y.

And dont forget those 250 pixels needed for the OS and application! Therefore, IMO, you really need that 2400 y TFT screen. And I'm ready to pay for it. The low eyestrain, the time saved zooming and panning, and improved productivity will pay for itself within a few months.

You bring up some very good points, i always like my taskbar to be double hight as i nromally have a lot of things open at once and when using the internet i have that and all the crap at the top of firefox and even with the minimum up there it combines with my taskbar to eat up a lot of screen space.

 

[1c3d0g]

I assume 1080 has taken over because of LCD televisions. Widescreen LCD TV production vastly outnumbers the production of widescreen monitors, and nobody wants a 16:10 TV. Thus the panels are built to suit.

Having used both 1920x1200 and 1920x1080, I don't see what the fuss is about.

Exactly. People need to get their panties untwisted and get on with life. So much drama for a few more fucking pixels. :shadedshu Get over it! 1080P is the future, whether you like it or not.

 

[bear jesus]

Exactly. People need to get their panties untwisted and get on with life. So much drama for a few more fucking pixels. :shadedshu Get over it! 1080P is the future, whether you like it or not.

So does that mean 1600p, 2048p and everything above is not the future? when looking at 1200p as the min with 1600p+ being prefered why should someone settle for less? i geuss mid range gpu's are the future as well or the g470 is enough so no need for the 480 or the 5850 is enough so no need for the 5870 as there is no need for a few more sp's or a few more mhz, just because other people have different wants and needs from others does not make those wants or needs any less valid, we all want different things from our rig's.

I want to point out again it's an extra 230,400 pixels going between 1080 and 1200p, thats' almost as many pixels as my first monitor had on the whole screen (640x480 so 307,200 pixels, admitdly 76,800 off but pretty close still ).

 

[pantherx12]

FAIL. Corporates do not want high x low y screens. In the workplace people READ and WRITE typically in PDF A4 or letter portrait format. People are more efficient scanning shorter lines with great y for topical orientation. In some countries text flows down too. So much productivity time is lost due to scrolling screens, zooming to read, etc.

In the business world people do NOT HDvideo all day long. In fact, they shouldnt be doing that at all in 99.9% of businesses. What on earth are these manufacturers doing creating these silly screens? What is wanted are portrait screens in ultra hi res so that an A4 page can be easily read. IMO, if a screen is as large as an A4, it needs to show the details one could see on an A4. ie. WHERE ARE THE 240 or 300 dpi screens? Where are the screens that can match our DSLR cameras? There are no more excuses that the GPU can't handle hi-res. They can all handle 2560x1600 AND HIGHER with eyefinity etc.

If buisiness were smart, they'd by wide screen monitors and then reorientate them

BAM loads of vertical space.

 

[bear jesus]

If buisiness were smart, they'd by wide screen monitors and then reorientate them

BAM loads of vertical space.

True, but then they would be wanting more horizontal space... you can never win.

 

[Completely Bonkers]

If buisiness were smart, they'd by wide screen monitors and then reorientate them

BAM loads of vertical space.

Yes, I run 2x 1600x1200 in portrait mode, ie 2400x1600

BUT there are problems:

1/ TFT manufacturers are dropping rotatable designs... due to cost
2/ Windows Cleartype is not designed to cope with rotated screens (although Windows CE does a good job for handhelds... the function isnt there on desktop)
3/ Sub-pixel orientation is no longer optimal
4/ Booting a computer until the login screen requires rotating your head to read anything!
5/ Forget gaming! Usually doesnt work
6/ Hardware acceleration of video and dragging across screens becomes problematic

...meaning that even when you can rotate a screen the text display quality drops off quite a bit as well as PITA.

 

[pantherx12]

Really?

I've only ever ran single monitors in different orientations ( favourite of mine was sticking the stand of the monitor in-between the bars of a bunk bed so the screen was hanging down and inverted for bed time movies!)

And I didn't notice any difference in quality regardless of the orientation myself.

 

[Completely Bonkers]

Someone summarizes a rotated screen as Craptype. LOL
http://blog.astradele.com/2007/10/30/cleartype-fonts-dont-work-well-with-rotated-monitors/

Apparently if you turn the monitor upside-down then cleartype goes bonkers.
http://h30434.www3.hp.com/t5/TX-TM-...rect-CleanType-Fonts-after-rotate/td-p/160295

Cleartype requires font hinting in addition to the known orientation of subpixels for it to work best. Unfortunately, portrait mode was forgotten, or found too difficult to implement, or ran-out-of-time, or considered to be not used enough to warrant the investment.

I'm OK with that - ONLY IF - we get some decent >= 1600 in the y TFTs!

***

Unfortunately, this 30" 4096x2560 (WOW FANTASTIC!) is black and white only
http://www.radiforce.com/en/press/release/pr_en_RadiForceGX1030.html