Wile EBut I'm not upset, at all. That's just how I post, and always have. Sorry it seems offensive, but it's not meant to be. You aren't the first to think I mean it that way tho, I get it all the time. I just don't really know how to think and post any other way.

As far as the reason they chose that wording? Poor choice of words from the PR guy, nothing more.

A note on prices: Here's some info on the standard features across the PA line, and some of the reason why this monitor commands a premium. www.necdisplay.com/Products/Series/?series=b7e3df18-9477-4f55-a29c-ad0fbdf58464 Most Pro monitors do carry a heavy premium, but you could be correct, and the premium on this might be too high, even for it's intended market. I guess we'll have to let the market decide that for us. Not arguing I am right and you are wrong, just adding more info to digest.

And here is the product page. www.necdisplay.com/Products/Product/?product=ea6da8b1-47a5-4ebf-8992-420aa57961ca

Notice how under the specs it lists 89º/89º/89º/89º for viewing angles, with no "up to" involved.

Ah, so I'm not the first one to comment on how you post. No, it's not the way you post. But the way you want to come off on people. That's the difference here. I'm simply calling you out on it (as I'm not first per your own admission).

As for the "up to" don't get offended if I don't take your pseudo explanation (it's how I post). You seem to harp on it enough and use a little deflection about it. You clearly know it's there but you want to refer to the incorrect tab that uses the term at their homepage.

EastCoasthandleAh, so I'm not the first one to comment on how you post. No, it's not the way you post. But the way you want to come off on people. That's the difference here. I'm simply calling you out on it (as I'm not first per your own admission).

As for the "up to" don't get offended if I take their word over your pseudo explanation. You seem to harp on it enough and use a little deflection about it. You clearly know it's there but you want to refer to the incorrect tab that uses the term.

What deflection? I used a direct link to the monitor's page with specs to show you that it, in fact, has 178º viewing angles. That's a fact that cannot be disputed, regardless of how the press release is worded. It has 178º viewing angles, plain and simple, period, end of, 100% fact. I don't really know how to be more clear?

Wile EWhat deflection? I used a direct link to the monitor's page with specs to show you that it, in fact, has 178º viewing angles. That's a fact that cannot be disputed, regardless of how the press release is worded. It has 178º viewing angles, plain and simple, period, end of, 100% fact. I don't really know how to be more clear?

Yeah, pretty much what I expected from you :laugh:. Perhaps if you don't troll me or others you wouldn't find yourself so frustrated (then try to defend it by saying that's how you post, lol). In the end, the information I provided "up to" is clearly written in the homepage about the monitor. With you arguing with me about it by repeating yourself makes it clearly pretentious in nature and not worth arguing about. It's clear we are only going to disagree ;).

wow that monitor has a horrible response time of 7ms, ouch i have 32 inch tv's with better response times, not worthj the money in my opinion you can get much better for cheaper

Marinebornwow that monitor has a horrible response time of 7ms, ouch i have 32 inch tv's with better response times, not worthj the money in my opinion you can get much better for cheaper

Yup it's what was said among other concerns. That's why I find it being called a "professional monitor" so questionable.
-slow response time
-"up to" viewing angle
-limited inputs
-16:9 aspect ratio
-high price
-etc

EastCoasthandle:roll::laugh::roll:

And, I do not see any HDMI ports and they want to charge a premium for crap, told you!

This is a premium monitor. I fully expect the price to be this high. NEC panels are the BEST....PERIOD.

You get what you pay for. I own all NEC panels and luckily got them at a huge discount due to the refurb sale. Best panels I have ever used and I mean EVER!!!

EastCoasthandleYeah, pretty much what I expected from you :laugh:. Perhaps if you don't troll me or others you wouldn't find yourself so frustrated (then try to defend it by saying that's how you post, lol). In the end, the information I provided "up to" is clearly written in the homepage about the monitor. With you arguing with me about it by repeating yourself makes it clearly pretentious in nature and not worth arguing about. It's clear we are only going to disagree ;).

I wasn't upset before, but now I am. There is no need to attack my character, just because I am correct on the specs I posted, and have a posting style you do not agree with. Who's the pretentious one here?

The information I provided clearly shows that it does indeed achieve 178º viewing angles, making your point about it saying "up to" 100% completely irrelevant.

Let me make it more clear.

1.) go to this link: www.necdisplay.com/Products/Product/?product=ea6da8b1-47a5-4ebf-8992-420aa57961ca

2.) Click on the Specifications tab.

3.)Be greeted with specs that clearly show the viewing angles to be 89º in all directions.


Here's a screenshot, in case these directions are in any way unclear.




-Response time is irrelevant for this monitor's intended market. This is not intended for gaming or movie watching. It's for color-accurate still work.

-Limited number of inputs is a valid concern, lack of HDMI is not.

-"Up to" is an invalid concern, as I have clearly demonstrated.

-16:9 is definitely a valid concern. (unfortunately, this seems to be the direction the market is taking)

-High price is always a valid concern, tho most pro monitors occupy this general price range, it's always a concern that they may have gone just a little to far.

Wile ESnip

Lol at the pic knowing good and well the information is on the technologies tab. Hey, you were always upset. You are simply admitting to it now. Your intent when you reply to my post was to troll. I simply corrected you and remained calm. One thing you seem to have a problem with is that we have a difference of opinion here. Something you are going to have to accept. When you decide to troll me with a lot of fluff expect me to:
1. Explain why I said what I said about the monitor
2. Explain why I disagree with you about the monitor
You can take it on face value but ultimately getting so upset about it (saying the same thing multiple times) simply won't get me to agree or acknowledge you. Like I said we are simply going to agree to disagree about this. You can continue to get as mad and upset as you like. :toast:

EastCoasthandleYou were always upset. You are simply admitting to it now. Your intent when you reply to my post was to troll. I simply corrected you and remained calm. One thing you seem to have a problem with is that we have a difference of opinion here. Something you are going to have to accept. When you decide to troll me with a lot of fluff expect me to:
1. Explain why I said what I said
2. Explain why I disagree with you
You can take it on face value but ultimately getting so upset about it (saying the same thing multiple times) simply won't get me to agree or acknowledge you. Like I said we are simply going to agree to disagree about this. You can continue to get as mad and upset as you like. :toast:

You are quite simply incorrect in the highlighted statement. I was not upset until I posted that I was. Not my problem if you want to believe otherwise.

And disagreeing with my posts about the viewing angles doesn't make you any less incorrect on the matter. ;)

Wile E... I was not upset until I posted that I was. Not my problem if you want to believe otherwise.

Wile EI wasn't upset before, but now I am...

I'm done here :shadedshu . There is an old saying about arguments like this ;)

EastCoasthandleI'm done here. :shadedshu

Good, the thread doesn't need any more misinformation.

Hmm, they are suppose to have a 30" coming out as well (PA series) that is true 16:10. If that is correct I will look at that one to see what specs that comes with. But as for this model its simply lacks to me to be worth the asking price based on the examples provided earlier in this thread.

Wile_E you should report this ignorant guy. Most of he's talks are irreverent to this thread and personal insulting.

Mussels16:10 never should have existed, it only did to make use of existing machinery. it was just a cheap out method to save money while they made 16:9 equipment...

the argument that 16:9 is meant to charge more for less is outright silly, when 16:9 screens cost less, and 16:10 was the cost cutting measure...

oh and dont use this screen for an example, or if you do, find me a 27" 2560x1600 S-IPS 16:10 with displayport, kthx.

A 2560x1440 panel has 160 vertical pixels less than a 2560x1600 panel, which very simply put means they get one 'free' panel for every 10 16:9 panels they make. Does this mean they would charge 10% less, though? I'd say hardly. :/

And this is exactly my point, I'd LOVE to find a 27" 2560x1600 S-IPS monitor w/ DP (another 30" wouldn't fit my desk). But I just can't because of this 16:9 trend. Hopefully a manufacturer dares go against the trend and give me a sweet 27" 2560x1600 S-IPS w/ DP. :rockout:

This whole 16:10 is better than 16:9 argument is silly.

Most 27" panels are 1920X1080 (16:9) or 1920x1200 (16:10) and then a small number of 2560x1440 or 2560x1600.

How is a monitor like this "omg a fail" just "because it is 16:9", when it is 2560x1440??

A 2560x1440(16:9) monitor has more verticle pixels than a 27"1920x1200(16:10) monitor.

It doesnt make sense to say 16:10 is always better 16:9, which a lot of you guys are doing. It makes no sense.

And just to add, dont be fooled by manufacturers specs when it comes to things like response times. Most of them lie. Go and check your 2ms or 5ms monitor on a professional website that measures these things with accuracy. You'd be surprised most are much slower than they claim.

They will sell plenty of these quality monitors.

16:10 > 16:9 for "general computing" (that is assuming you generally do more than watch wide screen movies on your computer, and if not, why bother with a computer?). If anything, I see 16:10 becoming more popular with time. WUXGA gives significant extra pixels to work with over HD-1080, but it's going to depend on your intended usage.

I'd like to see the image quality of this screen next to my Samsung 275T. I would put my money on the Samsung and would rather buy another Samsung, despite its lower WUXGA res. Especially for the price of the PA271W.

buggalugsThis whole 16:10 is better than 16:9 argument is silly.

Most 27" panels are 1920X1080 (16:9) or 1920x1200 (16:10) and then a small number of 2560x1440 or 2560x1600.

How is a monitor like this "omg a fail" just "because it is 16:9", when it is 2560x1440??

A 2560x1440(16:9) monitor has more verticle pixels than a 27"1920x1200(16:10) monitor.

It doesnt make sense to say 16:10 is always better 16:9, which a lot of you guys are doing. It makes no sense.

And just to add, dont be fooled by manufacturers specs when it comes to things like response times. Most of them lie. Go and check your 2ms or 5ms monitor on a professional website that measures these things with accuracy. You'd be surprised most are much slower than they claim.

They will sell plenty of these quality monitors.

This monitor is not "omg a fail", it's in fact extremely good and the complaint I have is against its AR (or rather, the decision made that it should have it) since it's targeting professionals. Why should I see less of the 16:9 video I'm editing because the timeline is obscuring a part of it? Why should I see less of the photo I'm retouching, or that 3D model I'm working on, or even that Excel spread sheet?
As previously stated, there are no downsides to 16:10 over 16:9 apart from black bars when you watch TV, which you shouldn't be doing on such a display anyway. :wtf:

16:10 will always be better than 16:9 when comparing the same resolution tier, so don't compare 2560x1440 to 1920x1200. You should be comparing 1920x1200 to 1920x1080 and 2560x1440 to 2560x1600, otherwise it indeed does make no sense. :banghead:


Anyway, I guess I won't be able to really convince anyone here so I'll just leave it at that and know I've vented my feeling on the subject. Take it or leave it. :pimp:

LiptonI want and need those extra 10% for professional displays. I don't get this 16:9 trend other than to save money since it's physically fewer pixels.

16:9 may be the future for cheap mass-market use, but I don't see it as a better future for people like me who need all the pixel real-estate I can get and I cry blood every time I see a "professional" 16:9 monitor. Luckily there are still some 16:10 quality panels being made.

No you don't. I work in media and i use a 16:9 display. in all honesty there are way more important specs to factor in way above aspect ratio...

ESPECIALLY if youre in animation and video production. actually, for previewing purposes its nicer to see something max out the entire screen, i find it to be so at least.

LiptonThis monitor is not "omg a fail", it's in fact extremely good and the complaint I have is against its AR (or rather, the decision made that it should have it) since it's targeting professionals. Why should I see less of the 16:9 video I'm editing because the timeline is obscuring a part of it? Why should I see less of the photo I'm retouching, or that 3D model I'm working on, or even that Excel spread sheet?
As previously stated, there are no downsides to 16:10 over 16:9 apart from black bars when you watch TV, which you shouldn't be doing on such a display anyway. :wtf:

16:10 will always be better than 16:9 when comparing the same resolution tier, so don't compare 2560x1440 to 1920x1200. You should be comparing 1920x1200 to 1920x1080 and 2560x1440 to 2560x1600, otherwise it indeed does make no sense. :banghead:


Anyway, I guess I won't be able to really convince anyone here so I'll just leave it at that and know I've vented my feeling on the subject. Take it or leave it. :pimp:

You are speaking for yourself and a select few others. The vast majority of media specialists i know would put aspect ratio way down on the list... but people always like to complain about something... would be like complaining about not getting a free bus pass anymore if the torries got into power, rather than the bullshit they'd do further up the top. XD

EastCoasthandleYeah, pretty much what I expected from you :laugh:. Perhaps if you don't troll me or others you wouldn't find yourself so frustrated (then try to defend it by saying that's how you post, lol). In the end, the information I provided "up to" is clearly written in the homepage about the monitor. With you arguing with me about it by repeating yourself makes it clearly pretentious in nature and not worth arguing about. It's clear we are only going to disagree ;).

You didn't address anything he said in his reply... just reworded what you said to a previous message made by him...

You're trolling, stop it.

Musselswhoa dude, we have multi quote for a reason. edit your posts into one.

tis done, sorry, wont happen again.

whoa dude, we have multi quote for a reason. edit your posts into one.

As a professional model, this is definitely everything you would need in a monitor besides the aspect ratio. They really should have made this a 16:10.

Oh and to the guy who keeps trying to retort anything Wile E says, this guy is the man when it comes to monitors. Just search his name and you will find tons of posts about monitors. He is correct about IPS monitors supporting 178* viewing angles, PERIOD. If you don't have anything good to say, maybe YOU should stop trolling and piss off:shadedshu!

EastCoasthandle

Marinebornwow that monitor has a horrible response time of 7ms, ouch i have 32 inch tv's with better response times, not worthj the money in my opinion you can get much better for cheaper

Yup it's what was said among other concerns. That's why I find it being called a "professional monitor" so questionable.
-slow response time
-"up to" viewing angle
-limited inputs
-16:9 aspect ratio
-high price
-etc

I was asked to keep it friendly:

wow that monitor has a horrible response time of 7ms: you are beyond pro, you are l33t:nutkick:
ouch i have 32 inch tv's with better response times:could you provide a link please:roll:
not worthj the money: Define what would be the worth of it, $350?:roll:
you can get much better for cheaper: Everything is.:roll:
I find it being called a "professional monitor" so questionable: We established you are l33t and pro doesn't cut it.:roll:
slow response time: Not l33t enough, I agree:roll:
"up to" viewing angle: Beyond 178 wouldn't be reasonable, wouldn't you agree?:roll:
limited inputs I agree, they need to include 16 more inputs, preferrably all HDMI:roll:
16:9 aspect ratio: I can't argeue with that :roll:
high price :confused:
etc :confused:

:banghead:

Keep the comments towards other members off of the forum please. If you cannot post in a respectable and friendly manner please move along. This goes for everyone.

Thank you.

Lipton16:10 will always be better than 16:9 when comparing the same resolution tier, so don't compare 2560x1440 to 1920x1200. You should be comparing 1920x1200 to 1920x1080 and 2560x1440 to 2560x1600, otherwise it indeed does make no sense. :banghead:

. :pimp:

Thats my point but some people dont seem to see that.


So this argument that 16:10>16:9 in of itself is stupid.

buggalugsThats my point but some people dont seem to see that.


So this argument that 16:10>16:9 in of itself is stupid.

yeah, everything from price/quality, compatibility, colour depth, contrast ratio. there's a multitude of other factors which are a much higher priority but very rarely one stat by itself is a seller.

buggalugsThis whole 16:10 is better than 16:9 argument is silly.

Most 27" panels are 1920X1080 (16:9) or 1920x1200 (16:10) and then a small number of 2560x1440 or 2560x1600.

How is a monitor like this "omg a fail" just "because it is 16:9", when it is 2560x1440??

A 2560x1440(16:9) monitor has more verticle pixels than a 27"1920x1200(16:10) monitor.

It doesnt make sense to say 16:10 is always better 16:9, which a lot of you guys are doing. It makes no sense.

And just to add, dont be fooled by manufacturers specs when it comes to things like response times. Most of them lie. Go and check your 2ms or 5ms monitor on a professional website that measures these things with accuracy. You'd be surprised most are much slower than they claim.

They will sell plenty of these quality monitors.

When arguing aspect ratios, it's usually done assuming the horizontal resolutions are equal. This monitor is "fail" (I use the term very loosely, as this appears to be a good monitor) at 16:9 2560X1440 because it would be better at 16:10 2560x1600. For most tasks, other than movie watching, the extra vertical space is very nice to have.

If I were a pro print or photo guy, I'd rather spend the money on a 2560x1600 panel, even if that meant going to 30". You can get a few in the same price range as this.