this time monitor is from professional ones. And I still thinking that paragraphs' - "Objective Image Quality Analysis" header just do not deserve word - "Objective". Human eyes subjective, hardware not (DeltaE measurments pre after calibration). I missing these things. I just can't go with this review to my boss and take responsibility for my companys' spent money. Maybe my thoughts wasnt right around £ 150 value thing (ViewSonic VX1940w review).. But in this case.......... :)
I'm personally using MultiSync® LCD2090UXi and X-Rites' "Eye One Proof" bundle for DTP color management things at my work, and this review can't argue me to upgrade. I need more detailed things...
this time monitor is from professional ones. And I still thinking that paragraphs' - "Objective Image Quality Analysis" header just do not deserve word - "Objective". Human eyes subjective, hardware not (DeltaE measurments pre after calibration). I missing these things. I just can't go with this review to my boss and take responsibility for my companys' spent money. Maybe my thoughts wasnt right around £ 150 value thing (ViewSonic VX1940w review).. But in this case.......... :)
I'm personally using MultiSync® LCD2090UXi and X-Rites' "Eye One Proof" bundle for DTP color management things at my work, and this review can't argue me to upgrade. I need more detailed things...
cheers :)
I hear your point - I did remember your constructive criticisms before and I was expecting your comment. :)
Having said that, I did want to test the self-calibration out and also measure DeltaE, but sadly no calibrator was supplied with the display for review (that's normally what happens with monitors like this, but it strangely didn't happen this time). I'm not sure why, because I'm not the only one that's had this problem either... I'll see if I can borrow one from somewhere for a few days.
Right on the mark of my forum post about monitors :)
Anyway: Is it me not understanding the images in the delay section or did you misinterpret them? I thought the clock was counting up in seconds? In such case the Dell is around .025 faster in all shots but the fourth. ?
Originally Posted by OleJ Anyway: Is it me not understanding the images in the delay section or did you misinterpret them? I thought the clock was counting up in seconds? In such case the Dell is around .025 faster in all shots but the fourth. ?
Sorry, that's my mistake and you're right - I must've had a massive brain fart when I wrote that portion of the review; that's my only explanation (I had been playing around with the OCZ NIA at the same time... so maybe that was responsible :o ). The counter is counting upwards so yes the Dell is actually slightly faster by around two hundredths of a second. However, the delay wasn't noticeable in the several hours (each) of gaming and video watching I did on the screen - the Dell is, like I say, generally considered to be as lag-free as they come.
Video watching is naturally not influenced by the IO lag in the display except perhaps for audio being slightly out of sync for the super-naturally acute ;)
Gaming wise though I'd be a bit more wary as 2/100 of a second is 20ms and most gamers cry if the g2g (gray to gray) is above 10ms.
The 25ms+ IO lag (on top of the Dells lag) would deter any lag obsessive gamer from the monitor.
To put it by the numbers this is NOT a gaming monitor. But again you wouldn't buy this for gaming unless you had too much money and didn't care about refresh rates.
I would reckon that the monitors 12-bit LUT (lookup table) might be causing this since color and image correctness is weighted above refresh rates on this monitor.
For $2k I'd Rather have the widescreen Wacom Cintiq20WSX. That's just me though as I'm a graphic artist. Sure it might be 10" smaller, but working directly on the screen is worth 10."
Originally Posted by OleJ To put it by the numbers this is NOT a gaming monitor. But again you wouldn't buy this for gaming unless you had too much money and didn't care about refresh rates.
well, its certainly not a monitor for those playing ut or quake, but for sc2 it would be perfect (it might even drop in price a bit until thats out:D).
Originally Posted by OleJ To put it by the numbers this is NOT a gaming monitor. But again you wouldn't buy this for gaming unless you had too much money and didn't care about refresh rates.
well, its certainly not a monitor for those playing ut or quake, but for sc2 it would be perfect (it might even drop in price a bit until thats out:D).
My 24" is great for Medieval II.. but a 30" would always be welcome.
For a RTT/Strategy game like that, bigger is always better.
Took me three months of reading to choose the 3090WQXi over other 30" LCDs. Got it yesterday. Wow did I ever make the correct choice. It's just perfect, right down to changing the colour and intensity of the power light. It's so good, feel free to call me to ask questions. HolophrasticEnterprises.com/NEC_LCD3090WQXi
for resolutions higher than 1,920 x 1,200, you need a dual-link connection because there isn't enough bandwidth in single-link DVI. It's still a single cable that just carries a pair of DVI links down the one cable/connector (and thus double the bandwidth) and all modern graphics cards support at least one dual-link DVI connector.
Bear with me on this one: So, a single DVI socket in my graphics card would use a splitter cable to plug into the monitor (I can't afford such a monitor at the moment, but I recently got a Gainward 8800GT - Dual DVI ){My 7600GS was DVI/VGA}.
Comments 1 to 24 of 24
this time monitor is from professional ones. And I still thinking that paragraphs' - "Objective Image Quality Analysis" header just do not deserve word - "Objective". Human eyes subjective, hardware not (DeltaE measurments pre after calibration). I missing these things. I just can't go with this review to my boss and take responsibility for my companys' spent money. Maybe my thoughts wasnt right around £ 150 value thing (ViewSonic VX1940w review).. But in this case.......... :)
I'm personally using MultiSync® LCD2090UXi and X-Rites' "Eye One Proof" bundle for DTP color management things at my work, and this review can't argue me to upgrade. I need more detailed things...
cheers :)
just quoting that in hopes that my boss reads it *subtle hint, buy me two of them k thx bye*
Monitors of that size sure are tempting, if only they would drop in price a bit faster.
I hear your point - I did remember your constructive criticisms before and I was expecting your comment. :)
Having said that, I did want to test the self-calibration out and also measure DeltaE, but sadly no calibrator was supplied with the display for review (that's normally what happens with monitors like this, but it strangely didn't happen this time). I'm not sure why, because I'm not the only one that's had this problem either... I'll see if I can borrow one from somewhere for a few days.
Anyway: Is it me not understanding the images in the delay section or did you misinterpret them? I thought the clock was counting up in seconds? In such case the Dell is around .025 faster in all shots but the fourth. ?
It seems very deep and 'bulky'.
I wouldn't say no though!
nice screen though, certainly wouldn't turn a free one down!
Sorry, that's my mistake and you're right - I must've had a massive brain fart when I wrote that portion of the review; that's my only explanation (I had been playing around with the OCZ NIA at the same time... so maybe that was responsible :o ). The counter is counting upwards so yes the Dell is actually slightly faster by around two hundredths of a second. However, the delay wasn't noticeable in the several hours (each) of gaming and video watching I did on the screen - the Dell is, like I say, generally considered to be as lag-free as they come.
Gaming wise though I'd be a bit more wary as 2/100 of a second is 20ms and most gamers cry if the g2g (gray to gray) is above 10ms.
The 25ms+ IO lag (on top of the Dells lag) would deter any lag obsessive gamer from the monitor.
To put it by the numbers this is NOT a gaming monitor. But again you wouldn't buy this for gaming unless you had too much money and didn't care about refresh rates.
I would reckon that the monitors 12-bit LUT (lookup table) might be causing this since color and image correctness is weighted above refresh rates on this monitor.
Peace
well, its certainly not a monitor for those playing ut or quake, but for sc2 it would be perfect (it might even drop in price a bit until thats out:D).
My 24" is great for Medieval II.. but a 30" would always be welcome.
For a RTT/Strategy game like that, bigger is always better.
http://www.pixmania.co.uk/uk/uk/666077/art/daewoo/lcd30kal-sensy
Sorry, edited as link no longer valid.
Whilst the 30 is very sweet, I would love to see the NEC 2490 WUXi in the UK, and for only £450, as per USA. I'd buy it immediately.
That's a new one on me. :|
Edit: Sorry, it wasn't posted by PCAdvisor. Here's the link to the article from the 28.7.08.
Bear with me on this one: So, a single DVI socket in my graphics card would use a splitter cable to plug into the monitor (I can't afford such a monitor at the moment, but I recently got a Gainward 8800GT - Dual DVI ){My 7600GS was DVI/VGA}.