Hi all ..

I am shopping for a 27" monitor ... I presently use two monitors (a 19 and 22) and want to move up to the 22 and a new 27" (one above the other).

My present monitors are Acer's ... not bad but could be sharper and better colors.

Does anyone have any direct experience with a 27" monitor? If so, I would greatly appreciate a quick review.

Exploring the net it seems that Dell or Samsung might be the best bets but I have no way of actually seeing before buying.

The clearest monitor I ever used was a 19" ultra bright Dell (my wife has it now). But new models sometimes vary from the older ones.

Any opinions would be greatly appreciated.

cheers,
eric

Make sure your card can power both large monitors well. Dells are good. Look for the one with a lager contrast ration setting. (3000:1) Mucho Heat! Also with the Dell purchase if you do a couple "call back to be convinced" scenarios you can get someone on the phone with a higher level discount ability. I have a Dell 30 inch. Insanley clear. takes about 5 minutes to get going! I run it with one of their 24 inch models and there is no comparison.

The dell 30" is quite good!

Also, the Nec 90 series are very hard to beat, it all depends on your needs.

Nec also offers spectraview software upgrade, providing automatic calibration of the monitor.
It writes directly to the hardware 'look up table' of the display.

2690
http://www.necdisplay.com/Products/Product/?product=8899a96d-28dc-484f-a4de-14309a636738

If budget is no worry,
3090
http://www.necdisplay.com/Products/Product/?product=4af7b335-9302-4429-8d73-74c35a363b57

Otherwise, look for a monitor with a 'IPS' panel in it, they have better viewing angles and don't suffer from color shifting. Try to avoid 'TN' panels.

Marc

I am with Marc - look for S-IPS panels if you can. They are usually more expensive though. And manufacturers often change the spec without saying so. Dell did this with the 24" wide LCD. Early ones were S-IPS and were great. Later ones were not and a lot of people complained.

I have 2 HP LP2065 S-IPS 21" Side by side. Very nice for the price. Might want to see what HP have in the sizes you are looking for.

or you can wait for this beauty..

http://www.slashgear.com/nec-crv43-43-inch-curved-lcd-arrives-july-for-8k-0445950/

I really like the idea of this monitor and i bet it's pretty imense to sit in front of - but why the poor resolution? 2880 isn't too shabby but only 900 high - netbooks are about 700! So you'll just end up undocking everything and stretching it out so not really saving much space at all I don't think. But maybe im too quick to judge, still for $8000 id want something to be perfect.

mmmm......I wonder how many I would need to get a 360º Monitor :)

Cool find contact7

---------

Well, that one is just a little over my budget.

After some weighing of budget matters and my fantasy wishes I just ordered an Asus 25.5" VK266H for under $450 CDN (about $400 US).

In about 10 days I'll write a short review here.

cheers,
eric

900??? I think that is just a relation of length and hight to have things look "normal" when presented. Nothing to do with the resolution. On "Non Square" monitors this number is always odd. The more non square, the larger the gap.

10,000:1..... Now THATS resolution!

I think it is 2880px X 900px so yes that is the resolution, which is pretty average for that size of screen. the 10,000 i think is the contrast ratio.

I think we're talking apples and oranges. But 10,000:1 means for every inch of screen there is 10,000 little points of light to use. This is the resolution capability of the screen. Massive.

If you look at the dimensions of the panel in relation to the number(900) and compared to a 30 inch with "2560 x 1600 " there is no difference. It's just the native relation to have an image appear normal. If you shrink the 2880 number down, the 900 could go up! Contrary to popular belief, the 1024x768 is NOT resolution. It is SIZE. In an image, an 800x600 image does not denote the resolution. The DPI does. If you change the "600" to something, the image just stretches. Same thing with the monitor.

hmmm not sure about your theory there..... but this doesnt change the fact that it is only 900 lines/pixels high (screen resolution - the word resolution is used with ref to this figure in the article, the 10,000:1 is just contrast ratio IE the contrast between white and black and is very good in this case.) This can't fit any more vertical data on it so (perhaps with the exception of moi with its scalable UI) most UI's will look quite cramped vertically which isnt good for a lot of programs even 1080p video wont fit onto it natively at 100% which is why the 1600 high displays are so good as you can stack things up, if it was say 1200 that would make it much better in my book, much less scrolling up and down mois browser. Just my thoughts - id rather have a 30incher over this one especially for the money.

looks like one of those philips 21:9 aspect ratio tvs for movies that gets rid of the black bars on wide screen movies - great for movies but what about normal tv? Id rather have a bigger 16:9 tv and have black bars - cant say ive lost any sleep over them!

Hi Burr,

Please read the specifications of the product :

http://www.necdisplay.com/Products/Product/?product=34f0e2d4-795b-4c4c-964d-da99e85a39fa

- Michel

I already looked at the monitor. You can easily check this by setting your current monitor to 1440X900. Seems to me to be plenty of room for any app I'v ever used. Now just add twice as much to either side and have room to work many apps at once.

BTW: the 900 number has NOTHING to do with the LPI of any monitor as previously stated. It's merly an aspect ratio setting for fitting the image to the dimensions of the panel.

Just wikipedia display resolution and also contrast ratio. 900 has EVERYTHING to do with the number of pixels (resolution) it can correctly handel vertically the official aspect ratio of this screen is 32:10 (look in the specs) which is the simplifyed factor of 2880x900px. Contrast ratio (10,000:1) has nothing to do with lpi or number of pixels/image size information on screen just the difference between the depth of the blacks and pureness of the whites so to speak. 900px high wont show 1080p video natively at 100% which kind of defeats the point of these for video editing.

Wikipedia is a poor source of knowledge.

Yes I almost put a caveat in there but still most common stuff usually seems correct, I wouldn't dismiss everything on it otherwise what's the point of it?

EDIT: did a quick google and found this in PCmag.com encyclopedia, the last sentence is what I was reffering to:

Monitor Size and Resolution
The standard resolutions are 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, 1280x1024 and 1600x1200, the latter three being the most commonly used. For example, 1024x768 means there are 1,024 columns and 768 rows of pixels on screen. The higher the resolution, the more material is viewable on screen; however, a high resolution on a small screen makes text very small.

>>I already looked at the monitor. You can easily check this by setting your current monitor to 1440X900.
>>Seems to me to be plenty of room for any app I'v ever used. Now just add twice as much to either side
>> and have room to work many apps at once

Couldn't be doing with any less than 1200 deep myself. I moved from 1600x1200 CRT to dual 1280x1024 panels and I really missed the extra space at the bottom.

Now I am back on 1600x1200 I'm much happier :-)

Just a quick review.

The Asus was recommended by a person on another NG. I was dubious at first because of the low price but the specs equaled or exceeded monitors at twice the price.

I am really pleased with it. It makes my older Acer 22" look pale and sick (though I previously thought it was fairly good).

For a budget price I think it would be hard to beat this Asus model (VK266H) and a much bigger viewing area (25.5") would be larger than I could take in at a single glance.

The colors are good and vibrant and the black and whites have great contrast.

cheers,
eric