Samsung Introduces the Premium Series 9 SB971 WQHD Monitor

[Cristian_25H]

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. today introduced the latest iteration of its professional grade Series 9 monitor, the SB971. Featuring quad high-definition resolution and wide viewing angles, the premium, hand-calibrated Series 9 SB971 was designed for users that require a richer viewing experience, such as photo enthusiasts and graphic artists.

"Graphic professionals, photo enthusiasts and other groups that meticulously edit visual content require a monitor with extremely accurate color rendering, immersive viewing angles and premium picture quality, and the SB971 meets these demands," said Mike Abary, senior vice president of consumer IT product marketing at Samsung Electronics America. "This new Series 9 product will join the recently introduced SC770 touch monitor and SC750 rotating monitor to round out Samsung's innovative lineup, offering every kind of user an ideal monitor for whatever their needs may be."





Premium Visual Experience

Each SB971 monitor is individually hand-tuned by Samsung technicians and features a built-in color calibration engine, ensuring the most accurate color possible. Samsung's exclusive Natural Color Expert technology includes hardware color calibrations within the monitor to guarantee there is no displayable loss of tonalities on screen. More than one billion colors are displayed on the SB971 as they were intended to be seen, creating a more immersive experience and ensuring that memories taken with a digital camera or camcorder stand out in vivid detail.

In addition, quad high-definition resolution (2560x1440) delivers four times more detail than traditional HD, truly making images and videos come alive on the SB971's 27-inch screen. The SB971 monitor also features Samsung's exclusive professional-grade Plane Line Switching (PLS) panel technology, ensuring that the accurate color reproduction can been viewed at wide horizontal and vertical angles. This allows users to share content with groups of any size, and also work from any corner of their desk without reducing visibility.

Elegant Design

Taking premium elegance to the next level, the SB971 has a minimalistic design and a "floating" screen that will turn heads in any home or office. It features a super slim profile built on an ergonomic height-adjustable aluminum stand, as well as a tilt feature, allowing for comfortable use in any situation.

The SB971 design has been updated from the original SB970 monitor and no longer includes a glass cover on the bezel, minimizing glare and resulting in 100% SRGB visibility.

All of the monitor's internal components are housed in a sleek, round aluminum base. The base also includes all I/O ports and a USB hub which provides users with streamlined installation and helps to keep work areas clear of cable clutter. It also supports DisplayPort, Dual Link-DVI and HDMI video connections, and features built-in 7W stereo speakers and a Mobile High Definition Link (MHL) for MHL-enabled smartphones and tablets.

The SB971 monitor will be available beginning fall 2013 for an MSRP of $1,199.99.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[brandonwh64]

Dat price!

 

[BigMack70]

It just boggles my mind that companies refuse to release WQHD screens aimed at the general consumer/gamer, and instead release wave after wave of these screens that are overpriced trash for everyone except graphics professionals. It also boggles my mind that people are spending $1k+ on 1440/1600p screens with 4k right around the corner.

I guess they're happy to pass those consumers over to the Korean/import market (crossover/overloard/auria/nixeus/qnix/catleap/etc).

I don't get it.

 

[LiveOrDie]

This screen is the same as a S27B970D the main difference is the glass was removed apart from that there pretty much the same with a few visual design changes.

 

[Octavean]

It just boggles my mind that companies refuse to release WQHD screens aimed at the general consumer/gamer, and instead release wave after wave of these screens that are overpriced trash for everyone except graphics professionals. It also boggles my mind that people are spending $1k+ on 1440/1600p screens with 4k right around the corner.

I guess they're happy to pass those consumers over to the Korean/import market (crossover/overloard/auria/nixeus/qnix/catleap/etc).

I don't get it.

4K monitors are here and have been for a while. An older used ~22" 4K monitor might cost in the ~$1500+ range. A new sizable 4K monitor will likely cost in the ~$3500 range.

A professional grade 2560x1440 monitor in the ~$1000 range isn't unheard of.

 

[hellrazor]

I could get three 27" 2560x1440 monitors for that kind of money.

 

[xvi]

Featuring quad high-definition resolution

No need to use ACTUAL terminology for anything. Just make stuff up!

I mean, I see where they're getting that from. The lowest resolution that's technically "High Definition" is 1280x720. In actual pixel count, that's ~0.9 megapixels (921,600). 2560x1440 would weigh in at ~3.7 megapixels (3,686,400), or exactly four times more.

To remove some of the spin on this, a 1080p screen is 1920x1080, or ~2.1 megapixel (2,073,600). This screen is ~178% higher resolution than a typical "HD" screen. Still pretty good, but not the 400% they're implying.

 

[BigMack70]

4K monitors are here and have been for a while. An older used ~22" 4K monitor might cost in the ~$1500+ range. A new sizable 4K monitor will likely cost in the ~$3500 range.

A professional grade 2560x1440 monitor in the ~$1000 range isn't unheard of.

Again, all this is in the professional and prosumer sphere. My question is why the heck has nobody tried to make these screens - 4k or otherwise - for the general consumer. Tablets/phones/laptops have made it quite clear there is a market for high resolution/high PPI screens that don't have to cover 100% of the Adobe sRGB color space and have perfect color reproduction and accuracy, so I don't understand why that hasn't made its way up into desktop monitors. Makes no sense to me at all that people will fawn over the latest "retina" display or 500 PPI smartphone and then continue to go out and buy cheap ass POS 1080p TN monitors for their desktop and gaming.

And it looks like 4k screens are going to become aimed at the general user more quickly than 1440p screens, with ASUS' 39" VA panel coming out next year (which will be way cheaper than $3500).

I'm thankful the Korean companies have stepped up with affordable 1440p screens aimed at the general user/gamer, because all the big name companies dropped the ball big time over the last few years on that segment.

 

[Octavean]

Again, all this is in the professional and prosumer sphere. My question is why the heck has nobody tried to make these screens - 4k or otherwise - for the general consumer. Tablets/phones/laptops have made it quite clear there is a market for high resolution/high PPI screens that don't have to cover 100% of the Adobe sRGB color space and have perfect color reproduction and accuracy, so I don't understand why that hasn't made its way up into desktop monitors. Makes no sense to me at all that people will fawn over the latest "retina" display or 500 PPI smartphone and then continue to go out and buy cheap ass POS 1080p TN monitors for their desktop and gaming.

And it looks like 4k screens are going to become aimed at the general user more quickly than 1440p screens, with ASUS' 39" VA panel coming out next year (which will be way cheaper than $3500).

I'm thankful the Korean companies have stepped up with affordable 1440p screens aimed at the general user/gamer, because all the big name companies dropped the ball big time over the last few years on that segment.

I think its safe to say that we are all thankful for the Korean imports.

When you say gamers though you're referring to a large cross section. Some gamers might buy an HD 7770 or HD 7790 while others might buy dual Titans / GTX780 for SLI. Maybe even some kind of quad GPU setup.So there are gamers that can afford to buy two or three of the above monitors and not even blink let alone a more reasonably priced HP ZR2740w or Dell U2713HM (~$600 USD)

And that is kind of the point really. Affordability isn't something that is static and set in stone for everyone in the same way. Companies are moving their higher margin products despite the fact that some find the price unpalatable.

I'm assuming HP, Dell, Asus or the like could just as easily buy out the Korean companies if they become too big of a nuisance rather then directly compete with them. Or they could try other tactics like trying to cut off or drive up the price of key components necessary in the cheaper monitors. Or maybe they are already subsidiaries,.....

 

[xorbe]

WTF is "quad HD"? It claims 4 times regular HD?

(2560*1440)/(1920*1080) = 1.77

That crap ain't even double. Ah, they are calling 1280x720 HD. Let me know when 3840x2160 is here ... or better yet 3840x2400 (16:10).

 

[PopcornMachine]

Quad is 4k.

They're just trying to confuse the easily confused, which is their target market.

 

[BigMack70]

"HD" has technically always meant 1280x720
"Full HD" is 1920x1080

QHD is 2560x1440 (4x "HD"/720p)
4k/UHD is 3840x2160 (4x "Full HD"/1080p)

 

[PopcornMachine]

Shouldn't 4K really be 8K then?

Besides, if HD was full at 1080p, then resolution can't get higher.

 

[hellrazor]

No, 4K is roughly 4 thousand pixels tall.

 

[PopcornMachine]

My point is the selection of 1080p as Full HD is just an arbitrary marketing ploy, like all this BS naming.

As a poster above pointed out, they just make these things up as they go along.

Why not just say what the resolution is , be it 1920x1080 or 2560x1440 or 3840x2160. And let the market decide what is good quality for the money. Assuming there isn't price fixing, which there is.

And why HD this and QHD that and WQHD the other thing. Just be straight with people.

Is that so hard?

I guess so.

...

 

[BigMack70]

Resolution acronyms have never been very straightforward, sadly...

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

 

[Deleted member 24505]

All these 1920x1080 16:9 screens are down to the film industry. Personally I don't like 16:9 always seems to be not high enough to me.

 

[LiveOrDie]

I wouldn't mind a 4K screen i only brought the S27B970 a year ago because i had the money and wanted a higher res than 1080p i still wouldn't take it back if i could, it fill my needs as i use it at the normal 100% dpi level.

 

[Prima.Vera]

For me, the best resolution for gaming and also office work would be 2133x1200.

 

[Octavean]

This looks like an interesting read:

14 WQHD monitors group test: Full HD is so 2012 2560x1440 monitors: more choice, better price

Lowest price was about ~$500 USD though,.....

Not too bad as it is getting a little better on the name brand end.

 

[hellrazor]

Resolution acronyms have never been very straightforward, sadly...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...ds4.svg/500px-Vector_Video_Standards4.svg.png

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

If you'd pay attention to it you'd notice that there is a pattern.

 

[BigMack70]

If you'd pay attention to it you'd notice that there is a pattern.

Yeah, because memorizing 3 and 4 letter acronym patterns that don't really mean anything is SO much less confusing than just using the resolution itself.

1152x864? Bah, nobody can understand what that means. And this thread proves there's OBVIOUSLY no confusion between HD 720 and HD 1080. Give me XGA+ any day of the week.

 

[Octavean]

Yeah, because memorizing 3 and 4 letter acronym patterns that don't really mean anything is SO much less confusing than just using the resolution itself.

1152x864? Bah, nobody can understand what that means. And this thread proves there's OBVIOUSLY no confusion between HD 720 and HD 1080. Give me XGA+ any day of the week.

Still since manufacturers are not omitting or concealing the actual spec what difference does it make?