October 14, 2014 at 1:07 pm #33205
Since many people have a wishlist / speculation about new panels that are coming in the future or questions about current panels i think a topic like this could be nice.
I am interested in the new AOU / BenQ M270HVN02.3 panel – planned for October production (27″ panel with 1920 x 1080 resolution and 3000:1 contrast ratio). Higher resolution screens do put a huge burden on the GPU as seen below.
GTX 980 in Metro: Last Light, Very High, SSAA got :
52.0 fps (1080p)
Unplayable at max settings in 4k.
Also the 34″ 21:9 screens have the same height as a 27″ 16:9. Of course 16:10 1200p screens are nice but none exist in 27″.
Anyway here is my wishlist / speculation about M270HVN02.3 panel:
– more domains (better viewing angles and less shifts).
– under 5mm bezel or bezel-less.
– wide gamut (quantum dot) or GB-Led, rec. 2020 color space.
– better overdrive / response time.
– very good brightness, color, contrast, gamma uniformity.
– factory calibrated.
That’s all i wish.October 14, 2014 at 6:00 pm #33208
Yeah I think this thread is a nice idea. And I agree that it’s important to look beyond 4K, particularly for consumers who are looking for an economical solution. I think there is a lot of enjoyment to be had from the UHD resolution but I also think it is something that will get much better in time, especially as GPU horsepower increases and scaling issues are ironed out. I’m personally quite looking forward to a number of upcoming 4K panels, especially AUO’s 27″ (M270QAN variants) and 32″ models (M270QAN variants) which should be interesting for price-performance. Dell’s glossy ‘5K’ (so-called) UP2715K also has me interested as do Philips upcoming 32″ and 40″ models (further details still to come).
Having seen them demonstrated at IFA, I’m also looking forward to testing some curved UltraWide monitors. Philips and AOC apparently have some things in the works for next year. There’s also the Samsung S34E790C which will be using a nice high-contrast VA panel. I didn’t find the demonstration images showed off the technology very well at IFA, but even so I saw a lot of potential in that monitor.
I also know that a lot of people will be eagerly anticipating the 144Hz AU Optronics AHVA panel (M270DAN02.3), but there are many questions remaining unanswered about the performance of that one.
And finally, I’m with you on looking forward to more affordable and ‘simple’ models which may still be ‘just’ 1920 x 1080 but offer great advancement for price-performance in other areas. The M270HVN02.3 is definitely interesting and I would definitely like to see some of the things you list being implemented. I also can’t wait for enough wide gamut models to be available so that content creators are comfortable to finally free themselves from the shackles of sRGB. I’m quite interested in the BenQ EZ2450L as a possible demonstration of affordable wide gamut if nothing else.October 14, 2014 at 7:37 pm #33211
I am interested in the new 1920×1080 VA from BenQ as well, quite curious to see how they could make it better than their current AMVA+.
I have to say I too still find the 1080p and 1200p monitors more attractive than the 1440p, because of the lower processing power requirements, but more importantly because of their extremely low lag figures.
I have been dreaming of a well-responsive, low-glow, 27″/32″ 1440p IPS monitor, with the same super low lag, but I think it will never happen.
Fingers crossed for that AUO 144Hz IPS, hope BenQ will understand that lag matters too.
Still on the topic of lag and regarding 4K resolution, one positive thing I believe is that it’s possible to get decent and almost instant scaling for something like 1080p on it. Check the review of the DVDO iScan Mini to see what I mean: http://retrogaming.hazard-city.de/ (scroll down almost to the bottom)October 14, 2014 at 8:35 pm #33212
I’ve scanned through that and also the official product brief of the DVDO iScan Mini and I’m still not clear what exactly it does. I understand its upscaling functionality (‘fake 4K’ if you like) but are you suggesting it can also ‘downscale’ a UHD signal into Full HD? Big limitation I see with that, for monitors, is that there is no DP on that thing – and that’s something monitors are and will be using for their full ‘4K’ capabilities for a little while yet.
And call me old fashioned, but no matter how fancy your processing/upscaling/downscaling is, it never beats the native resolution on a display of equivalent size and quality. Although in this case the numbers divide nice and evenly, of course. I don’t think that will be necessary on UHD/4K displays if they handle the scaling ‘properly’ themselves. Obviously that isn’t the case with the current 28″ TN models like the U28D590D, for example.October 14, 2014 at 10:00 pm #33213
Actually what I mean is as this little (and of course incomplete) DVDO device shows, there’s a natural interest from the AV specialists and manufacturers in upscaling to 4K the resolutions that are bound to become older/legacy (mainly 720p/1080i/1080p), which gives hope to people like me who need to adapt their source to higher resolutions, clean and without monstrous processing delay.
I wasn’t able to find a 1440p monitor that does that for my 480p/720/1080p sources. The only ones with low lag are the questionable-quality single-input Korean monitors, but that’s because those completely lack a built-in upscaler. I would have bought one if there was an external upscaler supporting 1440p available, but there isn’t even one on the market, and there will never be.
I can’t play my consoles or even use my current upscalers (limited to 1080p) on those.
Don’t underestimate the importance of upscaling, ratio control and built-in upscalers as a whole, the reason why low-cost Korean monitors are so popular among PC gamers is almost exclusively because all mainstream brands made monitors with 20+ms delay and locked screen refresh.rates.
It’s a very crucial part that’s much too often overlooked, or barely explored, by manufacturers and reviewers (sorry).
I too prefer native resolution when possible of course, but not everyone uses a monitor exclusively for his PC with a single, fixed, native resolution. People also use game consoles, AV gear, BD players, etc.
Not every built-in scaler behaves the same, nor provides the same scaling quality.
At the moment I believe the only (affordable) 1440p with a real good interpolation quality is the AOC q2770pqu, I like everything about it except its much too high lag (for my use).
So I was going to go with a 1200p like the BenQ BL2411PT, but found several comments of disappointed people confirming it can’t display 1080p sources with proper black borders.
In short when I mean there’s hope for 4K upscaling, I mean the 1440p ‘generation’ is considered a lost one for many people who aren’t just ‘PC-only’ users, and since 4K will undoubtedly be the next big mainstream resolution as 1080p was, it will naturally generate much more R&D and product creation = good.
Upscaling may be off-topic here, but to me (and crowds of gamers and videophiles) even with the best panel ever a monitor is ruined if the built-in scaler/interface doesn’t meet my expectations:
– picture quality (how well the scaling chip and its algorithms perform working with lower resolutions)
– very fast processing (clearly under 1 frame / 16,66ms)
– proper ratio support on all inputs (for 4:3, 16:9, 16:10 or more)
So I’m still sticking to 1080p monitors because AFAIK not even one 1200p nor 1440p combines all those three qualities I need.
PS: by the way > Sorry but no, I have no interest in downscaling ^^October 15, 2014 at 8:06 am #33218
Ah right, that makes more sense!
I should point out a couple of things at this point. Firstly, I do agree that input lag is important and it would be very nice to see a wider array of 2560 x 1440 and higher resolution models with lower input lag. This is something we test and this is feedback we give to manufacturers. We are not able to specifically discuss ‘overclocking’ or refresh rate increases in reviews, because it isn’t something the manufacturers like being done to the products they kindly provide or encourage others to do too openly. We do test it and report capabilities elsewhere, though, as you can see in this thread (for example). We are sometimes contacted by users expressing an interest in the ‘overclockability’ of a model and we are able to help them one-to-one if required.
Some really good thoughts there though. 🙂
P.S. There is no such thing as ‘1200p’ or ‘1440p’. The ‘p’ is only used officially in TV lingo for resolutions such as 1080p and 2160p. 1920 x 1200 / 2560 x 1440 aren’t TV resolutions.October 15, 2014 at 12:40 pm #33220
Well I’ve seen people omitting the H resolution and just stick a ‘p’ after the V resolution figure, and started doing the same because it’s quicker than writing down ‘1920 x 1200’. It’s pure lazyness. 😀
Anyway back on topic I forgot to ask if you have heard/read about the A-TW polarizer LG were supposed to start applying to their displays quite a while ago ?
Or anything similar from other manufacturers ?
It seems the general opinion about IPS panels is that those are overall quite good for everything save for movies, and it’s just the ‘ips glow’ that ruins the experience.
But I see no progress and really don’t understand the reason. (Seriously; why ?)
If monitors like the Samsung S27D590P or the new Dell S2715H were ‘glow-free’ or something close, I would buy ten at once. :pOctober 15, 2014 at 10:29 pm #33221
I haven’t heard anything more about the 23.8″ IPS with ‘A-TW option’ since it was first reported on TFT Central. The original report was based on speculation rather than anything concrete. The only recent panel I know to use such technology is the Samsung LTM270DL06 (27″ WQHD PLS), but bizarrely the newer variant used on their S27D850T doesn’t seem to share that technology currently. A-TW and other glow reduction technologiesd are definitely something I hope to see more of in the near future.October 30, 2014 at 11:15 am #33265
LG Releases the 31MU97 ‘Digital Cinema 4K Monitor’ – https://pcmonitors.info/lg/lg-31mu97-digital-cinema-4k-model/
new specialized monitor
4096 x 2160
DCI-P3 color space
10-bit colorOctober 30, 2014 at 1:24 pm #33266
There is already an article on that monitor on our website. We were in fact the first place to find out about this monitor and have the most complete information available on it. LG has even been giving our information out to retailers as their own website lacks a lot of key information. So I’ve adjusted that link for you.
It is definitely a nice thing to see a push in the colour gamut and availability of ‘Cinema 4K’, although personally I feel UHD and its 16:9 is and will continue to be better supported due to it being the common TV standard.November 2, 2014 at 10:10 am #33272
Regarding these new panels as far as i understand the Leo Bodnar test cannot independently measure input lag. It can only measure input lag and response time together.
So a TV with 14 ms (13.5 ms actually) should be considered a TV that has good pixel responsiveness and good input lag for both movies and games ?
Class 1) Less than 16ms / 1 frame lag - should be fine for gamers, even at high level
Are the input lag and pixel responsiveness similar in the sense that their effects are cumulative (accumulate) and produce similar artifacts and slow downs ?
Will a Monitor and a TV with under 16 ms Leo Bodnar behave similarly ?
What is the relationship between 4 ms G2G / 12 ms ISO (black > white > black) and a value provided by the Leo Bodnar test ?
For displays where overdrive is not used, manufacturers will generally quote the more traditional ISO 13406-2 response time which will represent a measurement for the pixels changing from black > white > black (0-255-0). This ISO response time is made up of the rise and fall time as the pixel changes from one state to the other and then back again. You will see specs quoted where the response time is listed on its own, without a "G2G" (grey to grey) after it. Typically there are limits for each panel technology of how far these ISO response times can be pushed. For a TN Film panel, the fastest ISO response time is usually quoted as 5ms. For VA matrices it is ~12ms and for IPS is is ~16ms. On these displays without overdrive the ISO 0-255-0 change is the fastest since the highest voltage is applied to re-orientate the pixels. Manufacturers quote this spec but you need to keep in mind that the other transitions (between different grey shades for example) will be higher and are not specified at all. In fact in normal use it would be quite rare to see a full black > white transition, and changes between different grey scales (i.e. between different colours) are far more common. Unfortunately the spec provided will not tell you how fast these are at all. Keep in mind therefore that the more important grey to grey transitions may be much slower than the quoted ISO response time, and so overall performance in practice may vary significantly. This is particularly noticeable when looking at VA or IPS panels without overdrive, where G2G transitions can be very slow. This ISO response time is only really quoted for screens without overdrive being used, and in today's market that is fairly rare really.November 2, 2014 at 11:22 am #33273
I have no personal experience with the Leo Bodnar test so can’t speak of its specific accuracy. And it would depend on the test methodology used. Two key points:
1) Any assessment such as Leo Bodnar which relies on studying the visual output of the display can not determine the ‘signal delay’ alone. Yes, it is influenced by pixel response time. And that value varies depending on the transition – safely ignore specified values given by manufacturers. The value must be measured and known for the specific transition that the Leo Bodnar is looking at for figures to be anywhere near accurate.
2) Signal delay is the element of input lag you feel and pixel responsiveness is the element you see. There is a fundamental difference between how these elements affect the experience. The delay before the mouse cursor starts to move (signal delay), for example, is very different to the delay before it is fully drawn into its next position (pixel response time). You can have a monitor with next to no signal delay and very slow pixel response times and it feels very different to a monitor with a long signal delay but snappy pixel response times. Even if the ‘input lag’ is technically the same.
These concepts are covered in the ‘input lag’ section of our responsiveness article. The whole article is worth a read, though, especially if you’re wondering why specified response times are of little use when it comes to accurately assessing latency.November 2, 2014 at 7:07 pm #33274
Someone (google Fudoh’s review of the Sony W6) underlined the fact that the Leo Bodnar tester also works with a target-brightness level, meaning measurement will be different whether the backlight is set rather dim or if it’s maxed out.
The difference is only of a very few milliseconds though…
I like the Leo Bodnar tester, but if the person who used it to measure a display’s lag doesn’t describe precisely under what conditions/settings, the results are kind of worthless.November 6, 2014 at 12:44 am #33295
For VA / IPS will true 6 bit vs true 8 bit vs true 10 bit impact pixel responsiveness ?
Or will it only require more CPU / GPU power ?November 6, 2014 at 10:24 am #33296
It shouldn’t have a noticeable impact really. Modern pixel overdrive solutions usually work just as efficiently regardless of panel bit depth.November 9, 2014 at 4:41 pm #33325
A short analysis of 21:9 future (like LG 34 UM65/UM95) :
1. Only 34″ and above have enough height. A 34″ 21:9 is the same height as 27″ 16:9 and so it is the minimum 21:9 size you want :
2. Prices are going to drop (now they are hyped up) as 1080p is moving out of existence in the next two years.
3. There is no benefit of 3440 x 1440 resolution vs 2560 x 1080 resolution on a 34″ 21:9. (unless you have 20/10 vision and you sit close to the panel )
In games the aspect ratio matters so you will get more vision in games with a 2560 x 1080 21:9 compared to 1920 x 1080 16:9 but no extra vision compared to a 3440 x 1440 21:9. Keep that in mind. Only professionals would need a higher resolution but then they would probably chose 4k 3840 x 2160 for considerable more working space. Also in games 3440 x 1440 is too hard on the GPU whereas 2560 x 1080 is a little more than 1920 x 1080 (33% times more demanding).
4. Signal processing and response time need to get on the same levels of 1080p otherwise it sucks big time.
5. Panel Uniformity is a huge problem too. (brightness and color temperature across the screen)
Probably a direct LED implementation should be used in such screens (not edge lit).
6. Probably a 50″ – 55″ TV 1080p is still more enjoyable for entertainment.
Although i really wish they were flicker free.
7. No VA variant exists.November 9, 2014 at 5:32 pm #33327
I agree with some but not all of those points. Some users are quite comfortable with the vertical height of a 23″ monitor (which a 29″ 21:9 is equal to) and find the experience quite immersive. I absolutely agree that more height is nice and 34″ is preferable and less ‘weird’, however.
I certainly don’t agree that there is ‘no benefit’ to 3440 x 1440 compared to 2560 x 1080 on a 34″ panel. You’re comparing something with the pixel pitch of a 27″ 2560 x 1440 monitor to a 27″ 1920 x 1080 monitor. I don’t think anybody would question the difference if you put it like that, would they? That’s like telling somebody they won’t see a difference upgrading from a 27″ 2560 x 1440 to a UHD model of similar size – it simply isn’t true. You don’t need anything other than fairly average eyesight to benefit from the extra real-estate on the desktop or level of detail in games to appreciate that.
Definitely agree about signal processing, it would be nice to see it lowered. Not everybody is sensitive enough to be bothered by the sort of signal delay we’re seeing on these monitors, however. And the pixel overdrive seems reasonable enough for a 60Hz monitor to be honest, you certainly wouldn’t see the sort of ‘smearing’ trailing you will see on some VA panels on their respective ‘slowest transitions’.
Panel uniformity can be an issue (and is an issue) with monitors of all sizes, but the pressures placed on monitors of this size are definitely significant. It would be nice to see that improved, be it with some form of digital uniformity compensation or otherwise.
And as for VA varients, that’s exactly what the upcoming Samsung S34E790C is. 🙂November 9, 2014 at 6:10 pm #33332
1920 x 1080 on 27″ 81.59 PPI
2560 x 1080 on 34″ 81.72 PPI
2560 x 1440 on 27″ 108.79 PPI
3440 x 1440 on 34″ 109 PPI
Putting enough distance between your eyes and the screen and the pixel grid ( the single most annoying thing in low PPI screens ) becomes invisible.
However people with good eyesight will find an improvement in clarity in higher PPI screen even from further away. 20/10 between you and me is still 2 x the vision power of 20/20.
In that regard here is a fantastic calculator that allows you to determine the benefit you gain regarding the combination of : screen size, distance, vision acuity ( including 20/15 and 20/10 ) and resolution ( 1080p vs 4K )
As you can see at 60.96 centimeters ( 2 feet in that calculator ) a 27″ monitor for someone with 20/20 visual acuity, the ideal resolution ( where the eye can’t distinguish anything higher ) is 3758 x 2138 so around 4K.
But for someone with 20/15 you will need 5011 x 2851 and for someone with 20/10 you will need 7517 x 4277 ( so in the territory of 8k )
The human limit is 20/8 ( the hawk limit is 20/2 ) and now you see why in Japan they said that there is absolutely no benefit going over 8K in resolution but that 8K is mandatory.
What do you think, the calculator seems to be well made.November 9, 2014 at 6:29 pm #33333
I like the calculator, yes. A very useful reference I feel. I consider 70cm to be a comfortable distance for a 27″ monitor (and even larger displays) myself, at least it’s practical for my current desk. Using 70cm (2 ft 4 inches inches on the calculator) it suggests that the ideal resolution for a 27″ monitor is 3221 x 1833 assuming 20/20 vision (my vision is better than that, but 20/20 is a nice reference to use). So you would still gain benefit from 27″ UHD over any lower resolution at that screen size – not something I’d need a calculator to confirm for me, although it does, as it’s something I’ve seen first hand.
Given that, I’m not sure why you said that you don’t see 3840 x 1440 as an advantage over 2560 x 1080 on a 34″ monitor when the pixel pitches are essentially the same as 27″ models with a 2560 x 1440 and 1920 x 1080 resolution, respectively. You’d need to be sitting what is in my opinion unpractical (for computer use) distance from the screen for that not to be a noticeable difference in terms of clarity if you have ‘normal’ eyesight. Say nothing for the difference in useful work area.
Speaking from my own experience with UHD on a 28″ monitor, I can safely say that the difference between that and a similar sized WQHD monitor was profound. This was the case even from a distance of 1m or so, at least for me. Another advantage of raising pixel density even above the threshold of a supposed ‘perfect’ density for your visual acuity is that the aliasing is far less visible even where AA is not used. This can save on GPU horsepower in theory and perhaps give superior edge sharpness to the usual AA solutions.November 9, 2014 at 7:50 pm #33334
Now time to edit your post 🙂
4 feet 2 inches = 1.27 meters
2 feet 3 inches = 68.58 centimeters
2 feet 4 inches = 71.12 centimeters
Let’s use the 2 feet 4 inches so 71.12 centimeters.
The ideal resolution for a 27″ at 71.12 centimeters with 20/20 is 3221 x 1833, for 20/15 is 4295 x 2444, for 20/10 is 6443 x 3666.
What i mean is there is no advantage of 3840 x 1440 over 2560 x 1080 on a 34″ because in game the aspect ratio is the one that gives you more visibility not the pixel count. Moreover this visible map bonus is considerable and increases the immersion.
Not an advantage in movies either since 99.99% of them are in 1080p so you get a soft image like stretching a 1280 x 720 on a 1920 x 1080 screen. ( 50% in both cases )
The only real benefit is the image becomes more clear like in real life. But in order for that to actually happen you will also need a Rec. 2020 color space at least. ( so you have the clarity and the colors ).
Rec. 2020 color space is possible :
“On May 22, 2014, Nanosys announced that using a quantum dot enhancement film (QDEF) a current LCD TV was modified so that it could cover 91% of the Rec. 2020 color space. Nanosys engineers believe that with improved LCD color filters it is possible to make a LCD that covers 97% of the Rec. 2020 color space.”
Next year Samsung is focusing exclusively on Quantum Dot & UHD.
The UK maker Nanoco ( the only maker of cadmium free Quantum Dots ) is building now a factory in Korea and will provide Quantum Dots to Samsung possibly even to LG starting next year. ( so 2015 lineup of monitors and TVs )
This color space new standard is even more profound than 4K because colors you could only see in real life will now be possible on LCD screens.
However minimum 10 bit panels are required.
I am going to buy a TV and a monitor in 2015 and i am glad I’ve waited for this new color space.
4K is going to drop in price quite fast and it will replace 1080p as the new standard. However there is a need for proper scaling on operating systems as i find the text to be too small on high PPI screens. Again 2560 x 1080 is better here than 3840 x 1440. More FPS in games another advantage.
Real estate for professionals they will go with 4K.
2560, 3440 will be resolutions that won’t be a standard.
If they could make the pixel grid invisible there would be absolutely no benefit in looking at higher PPI screens except there would be a larger usable area.
So the question with 4K is : does the fact that you can no longer see the black grid around pixels gives you the impression that the image is clear and crisp ?
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.