backtop

Hardware NEC Ships 25.5-inch Professional LCD Panel
Marcus Yam (Blog) - November 21, 2006 4:22 PM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 36 comment(s) - last by Larso.. on Nov 28 at 5:19 AM

The NEC MultiSync LCD2690WUXi in black (silver model also available)
A display fit for the gods

NEC is now shipping its latest professional LCD 2690WUXi display. The rather oddball 25.5-inch panel is targeted strictly at professionals, though the most hardcore of gamers may also be interested in its 7ms response time (that’s gray-to-gray, mind you, it’ll be 13ms with 7 white/black, 6 black/white). Other specs include an 800:1 contrast ratio, 400 cd/m², resolution of 1920 x 1200 at 60 Hz, and DVI-I+DVI-D+VGA.

What sets this LCD apart from the rest of the mainstream is its 12-bit gamma lookup table (LUT), which allows the monitor to display 16.7 million colors out of a palette of 68.5 billion, giving it the ability to cover 92% of Adobe RGB space. This makes it quite attractive for color sensitive applications, such as photography, CAD, medicine and scientific research.

The 2690WUXi is still slowly trickling into U.S. channels, but a quick investigation into Japanese and European markets sees that this panel is selling for more than $2,000.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
bummer....
By Souka on 11/21/2006 6:00:40 PM , Rating: 4
bummer...

wish they would ship a 25.5" Amateur panel.

;)





RE: bummer....
By TheRequiem on 11/21/2006 7:03:48 PM , Rating: 2
This really isn't anything exciting. 16.7 million colors and 8ms (who cares if its 7ms, its a 1ms difference) still is the norm. New monitors coming out this year will have HDMI connections and WCGFL's that give them 92% of the color gamut for a fraction of the price than this lcd. If you ask me, this LCD is a rip-off. Hard-core gamers are better off waiting for better and more optimized set-ups in 2007. Professionals users are probably better off waiting as well, but it's good to see they are coming out sooner then expected. Dell also has a 30-incher just released with WCGFL's for more colors.

~My two cents


RE: bummer....
By typo101 on 11/21/2006 8:20:53 PM , Rating: 2
forgive me for being out of the loop on lcd tech... WCGFL? not finding anything from google or wikipedia.


RE: bummer....
By AKAK on 11/21/2006 8:31:11 PM , Rating: 2
errrrr this is for accurate color reproduction right now there is simply noting other than CRT's that can do that and they have stopped making them so there is pretty much no choice at the moment for pros. Yea the dell is nice but not up to professional quality- medical imaging and the like cant be close or almost true. The alternative was the same money for a 20 inch CTR that is 75 pounds now that they are so scarce.

Stragely enough this is a deal if the quality is good enough.


RE: bummer....
By Rockjock51 on 11/21/2006 9:36:54 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4938


The other new addition to the Dell product mix is the UltraSharp 3007WFP-HC 30" widescreen monitor. While Dell says that the majority of the monitors on the market feature a color gamut that covers 72% of the NTSC color space, the new UltraSharp 3007WFP-HC ups that to 92%. Dell achieves this distinction by using a Wide Cold-Cathode Fluorescent Lighting (W-CCFL) backlight.

Not be left out are the display's generous 2,560 x 1,600 (WQXGA) resolution, 8ms response time, integrated 9-in-2 media reader and four USB 2.0 ports. The UltraSharp 3007WFP-HC will be available as an option for some select XPS models by the end of the year or the monitor may be purchased alone for $1,699.



Seems like a much better deal to me.


RE: bummer....
By glynor on 11/22/2006 9:51:07 AM , Rating: 3
While the percentages are similar, there is a huge difference between the NTSC RGB color space and the Adobe RGB color space (which has a much larger gamut) if you are a graphics professional. The NTSC color space was designed in the 1950s for television broadcast, not for professional color reproduction.

While the Adobe 1998 RGB color space is far from perfect, it is vastly superior to the NTSC color space for any kind of graphics work. That is why this monitor costs so much more! Comparing it to the Dell is comparing apples to oranges, and is akin to saying that a Pentium 4 must be faster than an AMD Athlon64 because the P4 is 3.2 GHz and the AMD is 2.6 GHz.

More info (and diagrams of the gamuts of many of the different RGB color spaces) are available here: http://www.brucelindbloom.com/index.html?WorkingSp...


RE: bummer....
By othercents on 11/22/2006 10:32:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
though the most hardcore of gamers may also be interested in its 7ms response time (that’s gray-to-gray, mind you, it’ll be 13ms with 7 white/black, 6 black/white).

Gamers don't care about the Adobe or NTSC RGB stuff they only care about the speed and if it looks good. So paying $2000 for a screen that you are just going to use for gaming is ridiculous especially since there are other products available for less.

Granted the Adobe RGB is going to be better for graphics designers and that is probably why there is a premium on the monitor.

Other


RE: bummer....
By Chapbass on 11/22/2006 12:55:38 PM , Rating: 2
according to the article...this monitor isnt designed for gamers at all..but for photography and other CAD style profesionals...


why are we still talking about gamers? I know it said it might "be a good fit for extreme high end gamers" or whatever the article said to that extent, but come on, gamers dropping that kind of bread on a monitor? no, its pretty obvious that this isnt designed for that type of thing.


RE: bummer....
By jwb009 on 11/21/2006 10:31:47 PM , Rating: 1
Right, except for the new 30" Dell, and HP...as well as the new eizo which covers around 99% NTSC. So, sorry, this NEC is hardly the only option out there...and its' overpriced.


RE: bummer....
By lufoxe on 11/22/2006 8:45:20 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Right, except for the new 30" Dell, and HP...as well as the new eizo which covers around 99% NTSC. So, sorry, this NEC is hardly the only option out there...and its' overpriced.


I believe you have something mixed up, you are talking about NTSC color standards, not adobe RGB, the adobe RGB is a smidgen more accurate than NTSC, this dell works great if you are using color correction in photoshop (or your choice of program), or working in illustrator(your choice as well), where you need the color to be accurate, because nothing is worse than seeing one color on your screen, (yes even when using CMYK) printing it, and then getting a different color all together, I say kudos to NEC, most professionals aren't going to care too much about the response time, seeing as how now alot of things move in those programs, on the other hand gamers, will enjoy the low refresh rate. (yes I know there's lower, but you are sacrificing the colors for it, you just may not notice it.)


RE: bummer....
By lufoxe on 11/22/2006 9:11:45 AM , Rating: 2
heh sorry, typo, I meant to say "this NEC works great if...


RE: bummer....
By melgross on 11/22/2006 2:29:16 AM , Rating: 2
It's a shame about Barco. They abandoned prepress altogether.


RE: bummer....
By swtethan on 11/21/2006 7:31:57 PM , Rating: 2
Wouldnt that be the home version?


RE: bummer....
By bunnyfubbles on 11/21/2006 8:32:05 PM , Rating: 2
I believe there is supposed to be a 24" from NEC coming out that is targeted more towards your average high end user and not just professionals.


RE: bummer....
By Oregonian2 on 11/21/2006 9:24:21 PM , Rating: 2
What does the LUT have to do the color gamut (regarding reference to the Adobe colorspace)? Just seems like it would provide improved accuracy/resolution within the gamut "edges" that the materials and light source provide. Just curious.


Why only 60 Hz?
By skyyspam on 11/21/06, Rating: 0
RE: Why only 60 Hz?
By bob661 on 11/21/2006 11:03:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They give the panel a great pixel response time of 6-13ms, but neuter it with an update rate of 60 screen updates per second.
Because LCD's don't refresh? So, like, it doesn't matter?


RE: Why only 60 Hz?
By skyyspam on 11/21/2006 11:39:38 PM , Rating: 1
That's a common misconception. Yes, they do.


RE: Why only 60 Hz?
By kkwst2 on 11/22/2006 2:01:24 AM , Rating: 2
What do you mean? When you post a silly comment like that, at least clarify it. LCD's don't refresh in the same way CRT's did, so they aren't subject to flicker. A CRT is completety redrawn at the refresh rate, so you can get a strobe effect at certain frequencies. LCD pixels are just turned on and off, so there is no flicker. There can be blurring by slow pixel response times.

Where, exactly, is the "common misconception"?


RE: Why only 60 Hz?
By ChainzsawX on 11/22/2006 3:16:52 AM , Rating: 2
Hmm you seem to have answered that question yourself!

You're funny.


RE: Why only 60 Hz?
By cochy on 11/22/2006 4:04:48 AM , Rating: 2
*is so confused* lol


RE: Why only 60 Hz?
By obeseotron on 11/22/2006 6:03:47 AM , Rating: 2
Pretty sure one of you is saying that LCDs don't "refresh", so 60Hz doesn't cause the same kind of flicker than it does on CRTs, while the other one still wants the image to "change" 100 rather than 60 times every second.


RE: Why only 60 Hz?
By skyyspam on 11/22/2006 8:16:32 AM , Rating: 2
No, even in an LCD, the entire screen still has to 'wait' to be redrawn, at 60Hz for most panels. The slow response time of the pixels is what makes it look like there's no flicker, but there is still some inherent flicker on any LCD.

If LCDs didn't wait to refresh the entire screen at once, we would see all animations on them being perfectly smooth. For example, when you move your mouse cursor across the screen, you wouldn't see the individual frames--just a smooth, albeit blurry, cursor transition as every pixel between the starting point to the end point come on and off in sequence. The same goes for things like games, where your video card may not be limiting your frame rate, but you can still easily see the gaps between the 60Hz frames in animated objects--like a sword swinging in Dark Messiah, for example. LCDs are generally caped at 60Hz, with a few shining examples having a 75Hz refresh (mostly 1280x1024 panels--anything higher will probably be stuck at 60Hz due to the bandwidth limitations of single-link DVI).

As for seeing flicker on an LCD, it's usually hard to see because of the very long response time (relatively) of the pixels. But, if you use your peripheral vision, and your room lighting is right, you can see it.


RE: Why only 60 Hz?
By MrCoyote on 11/22/2006 10:26:45 AM , Rating: 2
skyyspam is basically right. Many people fail to understand that low refresh rates of 60Hz also limit your input devices, especially in games. If the screen is only updating 60 times a second, then your mouse cursor also only updates 60 times. This may seem like a lot to most people, but in a fast-paced game, you may notice your input may not be smooth.

When CRT's were the thing, gamers continually debated that higher refresh rates gave smoother mouse and keyboard responses when doing quick actions. When the refresh rate was lowered, games felt jerky and the framerate was also limited to 60fps.


RE: Why only 60 Hz?
By skyyspam on 11/22/06, Rating: 0
RE: Why only 60 Hz?
By Fluppeteer on 11/24/2006 2:35:27 PM , Rating: 2
Um... there's some confusion here.

Firstly, yes, LCDs do refresh, and usually only at 60Hz. It would be nice, at least for gamers, if they refreshed faster, and not refreshing quickly enough can cause jerky animation (although 60Hz is generally plenty so long as the source is aimed at the same refresh rate; not many people are complaining that 1080p images won't refresh fast enough). However, that's not got much to do with flicker.

CRTs flicker because the phosphor is excited as the electron beam hits it, and is fading from that moment onwards. If it didn't fade quickly, you'd get ghosting, just like on an LCD; the image usually relies on the eye's inability to see high speed flicker, and if you take a photograph of a CRT with a short-enough exposure time, you'll see not very much of the screen illuminated. Rods are more sensitive to flicker than cones, which is why things flicker more out of the corner of the eye than when you look straight at them. The speed of the electron beam is directly controlled by the rate at which the graphics card pumps pixels at the monitor, so the faster the refresh, the less time the phosphor has between being excited by the electron beam, and the less likely you are to see flicker.

Once a liquid crystal is in a given state, it stays on. A large, steady white area on a CRT with a low refresh rate will flicker; a large steady white area on an LCD will have no change in the pixel values, and should be steady. When the screen updates, nothing happens to that pixel - even if it could change fast enough to do so, there's no reason for it to flicker.

In some LCDs, with 18-bit panels, there is a deliberate change in pixel values between frames, in order to dither to 24 bits. However, it's generally only in the least significant bits, and shouldn't be visible unless you, for example, drag a single-pixel chequerboard over the display. Moving images on a panel with overdrive can cause flickering, but it's unlikely to affect the whole screen at once.

However, the backlight is another matter. Generally the brightness of a cold-cathode backlight is determined by pulse-width modulation. Usually the frequency is high enough not to cause an issue, but it depends on brightness (low brightness settings are particularly likely to cause flicker), and it depends on the panel. And, obviously, on beating effects with fluorescent lights in the environment. I've never had an issue with an LCD, and I'm pretty sensitive to flicker, but the problem certainly exists. Panels with different backlight technologies (e.g. LED) may do better. Manufacturers are actually trying to put flicker back in (black frame insertion) these days to try to compensate for the pixel response rate smearing the frames together.

On the other hand, I've never found a plasma screen that didn't flicker so much that I couldn't bear to be near it. The brightness of a plasma pixel is also controlled by pulse-width modulation; I'm sure I can't see the individual pulses, but for some brightnesses the total time of the pulse pattern is enough to be seen. Generally the people in the TV shops look at me funny when I start shielding my eyes as I walk through the HDTV section; presumably no-one else has ever complained.

I have to say I'm more bothered by the weird size than the refresh - Eizo's CG220 is a 1920x1200 AdobeRGB monitor that's only 22" in diagonal, and I'd be more than happy with that being smaller. Why on earth are WUXGA screens creeping up in size? It's not like the pixels were tiny even at 22". Anyone would think that the manufacturers don't *want* people to put two on their desk...


Me Droooooooling...
By pjpizza on 11/22/2006 9:10:52 AM , Rating: 2
I have a NEC MultiSync LCD2090UXi, and I LOVE IT! Working with photoshop almost gives me tears in my eyes. You can keep your Dell's and HP's and what not's...

This display looks a designers dream!




RE: Me Droooooooling...
By rykerabel on 11/22/2006 10:25:53 AM , Rating: 2
Ok, all of these consumer grade monitors are no where near as capable as this one. Try reading http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/srgb-vers... and you might get a better understanding of why.


RE: Me Droooooooling...
By rykerabel on 11/22/2006 10:26:55 AM , Rating: 2
(not you pj, you have a pro-grade)


RE: Me Droooooooling...
By MAIA on 11/22/2006 10:59:57 AM , Rating: 2
A pro-grade, lol no. More like a nec-grade i might say ....


Very Expensive for what it is
By cheetah2k on 11/22/2006 4:06:07 AM , Rating: 2
er... US$2000!! why not pick up a Dell 30" for almost half that! Here in Hong Kong, they have it selling for HK$9999 which equates to US$1290... Surely Phillips realises that there is a lot of competition out there, and Dell is in the forefront of them all (While I'm very biased towards Dell monitors - I have this years 24" model - I can't justify US$2k on 25")

ciao






RE: Very Expensive for what it is
By El Stel on 11/22/2006 4:32:37 AM , Rating: 2
The HP LP3065 with 92% NTSC color gamut !!,24-bit color, Contrast 1000:1, Brightness 300 cd/m2, Response time 6msec ( gray to gray), 12 msec rise and fall and 3 DUAL LINK DVI-D inputs! for just US$1650.

I wonder what inputs the new 30" Dell has?


By thecoolnessrune on 11/23/2006 5:06:23 PM , Rating: 2
Guys look at the above comments before posting. Its discussed above the difference between the NTSC and Adobe palettes. They are not at all the same thing..


sigh
By Wwhat on 11/23/2006 9:17:18 AM , Rating: 2
Isn't it overdue to retire the LCD and get past the LCD stopgap technology already, geez.





RE: sigh
By ChainzsawX on 11/23/2006 6:42:17 PM , Rating: 2
Yes.

LCD's are great for the Eyes, but really are crappy technology compared to CRT.

Think about it...some High end CRT's could refresh at 100Hz at 1600x1200, can LCD's do that yet? No.

If you have a high end GAMING machine you will only ever see no more the 60FPS due to LCD's refresh limit...what a waste!

(of course I know there would be dips, and say a 120FPS at 60HZ would still look pretty smooth)

It's like we took one step BACKWARDS to go 1.5 steps forwards.

Come on Industry giants, stop yanking us around like punks and make a PROPER MODERN DAY awesome Display unit.

I saw a review of an LCD that could do 100+ HZ and although it was superior to other LCD's at 60Hz, it suffered from SLOW Pixel response (and cause major "tearing" on screen)!


RE: sigh
By Larso on 11/28/2006 5:19:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
LCD's are great for the Eyes, but really are crappy technology compared to CRT.

So, the geometry problems, unsharpness, flickering, power consumption and footprint of the CRT are features of a superior technology? People tend to forget about all the problems with the CRT and focus on minimal shortcomings of the LCD.

quote:
(of course I know there would be dips, and say a 120FPS at 60HZ would still look pretty smooth)

Maybe, but 60 FPS at 60 Hz is optimal, why would you want to render more frames than the screen can display? The reason even the fastest LCD's might have a liiitle bit of ghosting left is that the LCD displays the frame continously during the 1/60 seconds, while the CRT only shows the frame as a short flash. This tricks the brain into thinking the motion is smooth, while it is actually flickering.


"You can bet that Sony built a long-term business plan about being successful in Japan and that business plan is crumbling." -- Peter Moore, 24 hours before his Microsoft resignation

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments







botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki