bit-tech.net

Samsung Series 9 Monitor review

Comments 26 to 42 of 42

Reply
Pookeyhead 22nd August 2012, 21:59 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by longweight
Here is a real review of the monitor: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/content/samsung_s27b970d.htm



...and that, Bit-Tech is how you do a monitor review.

I've only ever used one PLS screen, and only briefly, and I was impressed. Black levels and off axis glow seemed FAR more controlled.

I hope NEC or Eizo release a proper high end pro model with this technology. No reason why not, as my Eizo screen already uses a Samsung S-PVA panel. THAT will be something I'd be interested in buying.

I was really hoping Bit would go into more detail with PLS. It seems they just don't have anyone with the experience and expertise to produce a good monitor review.


Oh.. that mention of sRGB mode that made me think it was wide gamut? Well.. clearly it is misleading, because this is NOT a wide gamut screen. In fact, it can't even manage 100% sRGB. I wish there was a high end AdobeRGB wide PLS screen... I'd love to put one through it's paces.... as I ****ing hate IPS sometimes.
azrael- 22nd August 2012, 22:07 Quote
Word on the street is _some_ variations of the Eizo FORIS FS2332 use PLS panels although Eizo adamantly states IPS panels are used. Then again I wouldn't want to use a 16:9 screen.
Pookeyhead 22nd August 2012, 22:12 Quote
16:9 is for girls :)

Anyway.. I hate the Foris series. It has to be programmable LUT hardware level calibration for me... yeah baby!

I'm gonna do some research on this.... or maybe not... I'll end up blowing another £2k on a screen again.
sandys 22nd August 2012, 22:36 Quote
Yumm, shiny, if only it had more connections.
dolphie 23rd August 2012, 04:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pookeyhead
Shiny screen = fail.

You ever used one? They look AMAZING. I have used both and I find shiny to be the best. The none shiny ones have a grainy looking anti glare coating and I think it's fugly. The only downside of a shiny screen is reflections, but that's something I can deal with by closing my blinds or whatever.

But yeah I would need a far better review before I bought anything like this. One of the issues I read about the dell was input lag. I would like to know how this screen does with that.
fluxtatic 23rd August 2012, 07:25 Quote
Yeesh, bit, no more monitor reviews, please. Not until you can do them right, anyway.

This monitor's stupid - seems aimed at the sort who might buy a TB display if they shop on the dark side. Lots of shiny, but a little lacking in substance here (this one - the Apple panel seems nice, if way, way more money than I'd ever drop on a monitor.) Not quality enough to actually be used as a pro display? How is this worth this kind of money, considering it isn't machined out of a solid block of aluminum?

All the monitors in my house are on arms now, and there will be no going back. That this cannot possibly be mounted on an arm is a deal-breaker alone.
azrael- 23rd August 2012, 07:38 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pookeyhead
16:9 is for girls :)

Anyway.. I hate the Foris series. It has to be programmable LUT hardware level calibration for me... yeah baby!

I'm gonna do some research on this.... or maybe not... I'll end up blowing another £2k on a screen again.
FORIS FS2331, FS2332 and FS2333 seem to support hardware calibration.

Why can't they release a 24" 1920x1200 version... I'd buy that in an instant!
Pookeyhead 23rd August 2012, 08:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by dolphie
You ever used one? They look AMAZING.


(sigh)


I wouldn't have posted the comment if I hadn't. I'm not some 13 year old fan boy. Yes.. For my sins I am forced to use a Mac at work, and it has a shiny screen, and it's hell. There is a window behind me, and all I see when I look at the screen is a reflection of the window and my silhouette. My eyes are constantly hunting for focus between the screen and outside, and after an hour I have to walk away or get a headache.

Have YOU ever used a proper monitor that didn't cost less than £500? Because my home monitor with a matte screen wipes the floor with the Mac at work.. in every way.. including sharpness.

Even cheaper monitors like the Dell 2711 that have a fairly aggressive anti reflection coating are preferable to gloss, even if they do reduce sharpness slightly. A decent anti-glare coating doesn't effect sharpness though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by azrael-
FORIS FS2331, FS2332 and FS2333 seem to support hardware calibration.

Why can't they release a 24" 1920x1200 version... I'd buy that in an instant!

No, they don't. That link to the calibrator is just informing you that you can use it with that screen, but the calibration will be at software level via the GPU driver. You can use any calibrator with any screen. By HARDWARE calibration, I don't mean calibrate it with a piece of hardware such as the colorimeter you linked to, but instead use it to programme the monitors programmable look up table instead of creating a ICM profile the GPU loads at start up.

The FORIS screens are consumer products for home entertainment purposes.
azrael- 23rd August 2012, 09:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pookeyhead
No, they don't. That link to the calibrator is just informing you that you can use it with that screen, but the calibration will be at software level via the GPU driver. You can use any calibrator with any screen. By HARDWARE calibration, I don't mean calibrate it with a piece of hardware such as the colorimeter you linked to, but instead use it to programme the monitors programmable look up table instead of creating a ICM profile the GPU loads at start up.

The FORIS screens are consumer products for home entertainment purposes.
I know exactly what you mean, but the wording on Eizo's web site suggests hardware calibration, which is why I mentioned it. They probably intend to state that you can calibrate the monitor using a piece of hardware (the colorimeter, that is)... ;)
GuilleAcoustic 23rd August 2012, 10:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blademrk
looking at it, I don't think it has Vesa mounts so you wouldn't be able to use it on a mounting bracket anyway.

It's a double fail, the first one being the shiny panel. I agree with Pookey, we want more details like input lag, ghosting, etc. I know you can do it Bit, just look at your GPU, CPU and other hardwares reviews ;)
sandys 23rd August 2012, 10:38 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by dolphie
You ever used one? They look AMAZING. I have used both and I find shiny to be the best. The none shiny ones have a grainy looking anti glare coating and I think it's fugly. The only downside of a shiny screen is reflections, but that's something I can deal with by closing my blinds or whatever.

But yeah I would need a far better review before I bought anything like this. One of the issues I read about the dell was input lag. I would like to know how this screen does with that.

Agree, if this had more ports I'd ditch my U2711 and its horrid AG for Shiny.
Baz 29th August 2012, 23:25 Quote
Those of you expecting TFT central levels of detail from us are being unrealistic I fear. Its reviews are fantastically in-depth, no doubt, but that one review is 17,000 words long. If that were on bit-tech, it would be 34 pages long, and take someone the best part of 2 weeks to write.

While sites dedicated to monitor reviews have the time and patience to review panels in this way (and reap the benefits of being the few to offer such depth), we simply do not have the budget or time to cover panels in that sort of detail. We have made movements to improve our monitor reviews by finally employing an image quality sensor, but writing dissertation length articles on monitors isn't on the agenda.

I know you guys crave endless info, and the more info is usually the better, but we're simply not setup to cover displays idown to the minutia you seem to expect. Not sure why this is the case, as bit-tech has never done super in-depth panel reviews. The most comprehensive I can recall is this.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/monitors/2008/06/26/nec-multisync-lcd3090wqxi-30-widescreen/1

Where Tim tested input lag, but not colour accuracy or calibration.

Specialist sites serve a purpose, but we aim to cover a wider array of hardware. That means sometimes being a little less in-depth than some, but it doesn't invalidate the view point.
Vallachia 30th August 2012, 13:08 Quote
Quote:
Specialist sites serve a purpose, but we aim to cover a wider array of hardware. That means sometimes being a little less in-depth than some, but it doesn't invalidate the view point.

I do understand where you are coming from, and sometimes I don't really want to read 34 pages of excruciating detail either. But as I am in the market for a new screen I absolutely need to know how accurate color reproduction is after calibration and how good the blacks are (and does it crush black detail?). Wide gamut (yes/no at least) as well as input lag is also crucial info. when shopping for a new screen imho.

There's a lot of great screens available nowadays, so I'm much more interested in hard facts than a viewpoint. It surely is possible to cram most of the facts your readers want into a reasonably short review.

/end rant.

I would like to say thanks for posting this review, it was an interesting read. I did feel the need to look elsewhere for more info. after I finished reading. I think that fact in itself may be the best feedback I can give.
Baz 31st August 2012, 01:15 Quote
I'll certainly take some of the info here on-board, and see if we can't improve out next monitor review. Calibrated performance is fairly niche though; I'm all in for adjusting settings to optimise colour accuracy etc, butI don't know anyone who has a calibrator at home for actually calibrating their screen.

Input lag will be added, and I'll be sure that we cover some more stuff such as black detail, etc.
Pookeyhead 31st August 2012, 08:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baz
Those of you expecting TFT central levels of detail from us are being unrealistic I fear. Its reviews are fantastically in-depth, no doubt, but that one review is 17,000 words long. If that were on bit-tech, it would be 34 pages long, and take someone the best part of 2 weeks to write.

No one is expecting that, but on a site such as bit-tech we want a technical review, not a purely subjective consumer type review. Your average CPU or GPU review is around 11 pages long, and contains a great deal of testing and benchmarking. THAT must take far longer than doing some objective technical testing of a monitor.


Here's a Bit Tech CPU review.

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b26/pookeyhead/cpu.jpg


That must have taken ages. So you see the value in testing a CPU thoroughly, and clearly don't see the value in testing a monitor thoroughly. We're not asking for 30,000 words... we're asking for objective, technical testing, with data as a result, not just "it looks nice... in my opinion"... because anyone who knows anything about displays will also know that such a review is utterly useless. I don't equate Bit Tech with useless reviews ordinarily, but with monitors... that's exactly what you provide.

No excuse... sorry. All your other hardware reviews are pretty excellent, and I just don't understand why the monitor reviews are so poor - the monitor is what you actually look at and interface with. It's one of the most crucial parts of any system, yet your reviews can be summarised by "It has these inputs, the stand does this and that, and it looks like this". It's the equivalent of a GPU review saying, "It played all the games we tested on it well" and leaving it at that. What are the black levels? Latency times? Delta E out of the box? How well does it calibrate? What's it's colourspace like? Viewing angle tests? How does it cope with a 24P blue ray signal? How well does it's hardware scaling cope? There's so much you're just glossing over. No one is asking you to try and compete with a web site that ONLY tests monitors. Just test thoroughly and provide data.
jimmyjj 2nd September 2012, 01:32 Quote
On the other hand, if you see a short review that says "this seems quite nice" at least you get a heads up about a new product that might be worth looking into. You can then go on some other sites for a proper review.

This is quite helpful - especially if monitor review sites are not something on your standard rotation.

I normally only look at Bit Tech, Toms Hardware and Anand Tech, but if I see a monitor I like the look of I would make the effort to go to TFT Central or PRAD.

What I am saying is that even though the reviews could be a million times better, I still like to see Bit Tech covering monitors and I would not want them to just stop doing monitor reviews.
rwalkero 28th September 2012, 19:03 Quote
I like Sumsung LCD, has anybody tried out the new LCD from ASUS.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums