Would you buy this monitor?

[velis]

See http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2096910 for introduction.

I guess these are the monitor parameters that seemed logical from the poll in the original thread.

IPS panel
90Hz +
27"
2560x1600 (16:10)
RGB LED backlight (if not too expensive)
Detachable bezel (to combine multiple monitors in eyefinity) - if possible
Pivot function is a must
Low input + processing lag (<20ms if possible)

IPS was a crushing winner over TN, although I think lots of people would go for TN as well if it were really good (82%+ Adobe RGB)
I list 90Hz because I believe that's still achievable on IPS without skyrocketing the price. It also kinda fits the poll results (3:2 in favor of 120Hz).
Both size and resolution are medians of poll results though size was obviously a matter of personal preference. Some wanted big monitors with low DPI, others small ones with insane DPI. I would guess that poll results for size were completely irrelevant.

RGB LED would be great, but CCFL would do fine if that would keep price in check. The other features seem only logical to me...

So, how much would you be willing to pay for this monitor and - if it were available - would you buy it right away?

Please vote for one option only from each group in the poll.

The goal of this thread is (naively) to determine if there's actually a market for such a monitor and (even more naively) possibly persuade the manufacturers to maybe even produce one monitor such as this.

 

[Wag]

The proper resolution for a 27" display would be 2560x1440 as it would be 16:9 and not 16:10.

 

[darkewaffle]

Not for consumers, no. There just aren't enough people willing to dig that deeply into their pockets.

I'd probably want one, but I'm in no position to drop a few thousand dollars on a 'perfect' display when I can get an excellent one for a fraction of the cost.

 

[Daedalus685]

The proper resolution for a 27" display would be 2560x1440 as it would be 16:9 and not 16:10.

There is no reason you couldn't have a 16:10 display that is 27" (roughly) diagonal. They simply just don't bother to make them currently, not that they can't.

I believe the point is that someone "should" make one as there seems to be interest in that size and resolution.


I'd be very unlikely to spend nearly 1K on a display just for colour possibility as I have a hard time noticing as I don't do much photo work... I'd certainly love a 2560*1600 display in the sub 30" ball park though.

 

[JAG87]

The proper resolution for a 27" display would be 2560x1440 as it would be 16:9 and not 16:10.

Umm, 16:10 27" panels already exist, so you could make a 2560x1600 one.

I voted immediately and >1300. Obviously the cheaper the better. But I'm not sure I'd go for 90Hz, I would want 120Hz for perfect 23.976 5:5 pull down.

 

[Wag]

Umm, 16:10 27" panels already exist, so you could make a 2560x1600 one.

There must be a very small number of them and they probably cost a lot as well. You mind listing some? I assume they are all for pro-graphics work?

 

[JAG87]

There must be a very small number of them and they probably cost a lot as well. You mind listing some? I assume they are all for pro-graphics work?

You were under a rock when Dell launched the 2709 something like 3 years ago?

 

[sandorski]

<20ms is not good enough for Gamers. Unless you mean <5ms. I wouldn't Pay anything for that Monitor.

 

[Wag]

You were under a rock when Dell launched the 2709 something like 3 years ago?

I know about that one, it's 1920x1200 (and discontinued), you made it seem like there is more than one and there are some that are 2560x1600.

 

[JAG87]

I know about that one, it's 1920x1200 (and discontinued), you made it seem like there is more than one and there are some that are 2560x1600.

Oh no, that's not what I meant.

If anything though, you made it seem like it's not possible to have a 16:10 27" panel.

 

[Wag]

Oh sure, 27" 16:10 is possible, but I don't even think anyone manufactures that panel size anymore. I own a u2711, nice display, and I'm interested in the new Apple 27" coming out.

As for a 120Hz high-def display (higher than 1080p), forget it. It would cost way too much to manufacture.

 

[JAG87]

Oh sure, 27" 16:10 is possible, but I don't even think anyone manufactures that panel size anymore. I own a u2711, nice display, and I'm interested in the new Apple 27" coming out.

As for a 120Hz high-def display (higher than 1080p), forget it. It would cost way too much to manufacture.

I have the same display and I am quite content with it. I don't think the apple panel will bring anything groundbreaking that's worth the money.

 

[velis]

<20ms is not good enough for Gamers. Unless you mean <5ms. I wouldn't Pay anything for that Monitor.

Input + processing lag != pixel response time
I don't think there are many LCD monitors available today with such a low input and processing lag.

Anyway, seems like there isn't much interest in such a monitor. Or maybe I didn't get the thread title right.

 

[borisvodofsky]

Not for consumers, no. There just aren't enough people willing to dig that deeply into their pockets.

I'd probably want one, but I'm in no position to drop a few thousand dollars on a 'perfect' display when I can get an excellent one for a fraction of the cost.

More like Not enough people have that deep of a pocket to dip into..

Hurray for Parents.. h000t:wub:

 

[RussianSensation]

Not for consumers, no. There just aren't enough people willing to dig that deeply into their pockets.

I'd probably want one, but I'm in no position to drop a few thousand dollars on a 'perfect' display when I can get an excellent one for a fraction of the cost.

Since IPS is still used as an LCD technology, it has miles to go before being considered a perfect screen. At the end of the day, no LCD/LED comes close to any top of the line plasmas for response time, black levels, color quality, while having a "screen-door-effect" that plagues almost every LCD/LED ever made, etc. So while it may be a great PC monitor, it will be nowhere near that for movies or games.

It will take a new technology to combine the high resolution and lower power consumption of LCDs with the image quality of plasma to make a perfect monitor that can be equally good at 2D as well as 3D.

 

[tweakboy]

Ya, I use 2304x1440@80hz for over 10 years... Soo if I get a LCD I aint going down on res, so 2560x1440 sounds attractive to me. Also 27" is perfect, dont want bigger or smaller.

90hz doesnt. It should be 120hz at least. Maybe we gotta wait longer until PC LCD advance and what not..

 

[Bill Brasky]

I have no desire to spend that much on a monitor period. $300 is about my upper limit.