bit-tech.net

Samsung launches Series 9 Quad HD IPS PLS monitor

Samsung launches Series 9 Quad HD IPS PLS monitor

Samsung's new Series 9 family starts with a Quad HD 27in beast featuring a new Plane Line Switching (PLS) LED-backlit panel.

Samsung has officially launched its Series 9 monitors, with the first model in the family offering an impressive 2,560x1,440 resolution in a 27in diagonal.

Based on an In-Plane Switching (IPS) panel using new Plane Line Switching (PLS) technology with LED backlighting, Samsung claims the high-resolution display can hit a 1,000:1 static contrast ratio which can be further boosted using the company's Mega ∞ Dynamic Contrast Ratio (DCR) technology. Overall display brightness is given at 285cd/m², a response time of 5ms is promised, while the IPS panel means viewing angles of 178 degrees both vertically and horizontally.

The Series 9 LED S27B970D, to give the product its full title, comes in a high-gloss black and metal-silver casing with tilt and 100mm height-adjustable stand, and features dual-link DVI and HDMI inputs along with an integral dual-port USB 2.0 hub. Rated power consumption is given by Samsung as 63W maximum, with standby power rated at 0.5W maximum.

Given Samsung's targeting of the well-heeled prosumer market, it should come as no surprise that the box includes a power cable, DVI cable, Display Port adapter cable, and a USB 2.0 cable - although, for some reason, Samsung has opted not to include an HDMI cable with the display.

As well as acting as a standard USB 2.0 hub, the monitor's USB circuitry hides another feature: Mobile High-Definition Link (MHL) support. Connected to an MHL-compatible smartphone, the monitor can charge the device while simultaneously transferring high-definition video and stereo audio for playback through the monitor's integral stereo speakers.

The display's biggest selling point, however, comes from a claimed hour-long adjustment process carried out at the factory during which Samsung engineers calibrate the monitor for maximum image quality. An in-built calibration engine allows for additional fine-tuning on-site, although the colourimeter sensor required is an additional-cost add-on.

According to Samsung, the new PLS panel means improved colour reproduction across the entire sRGB spectrum with no degradation even when viewed at the extreme ends of the display's 178-degree viewing angle. The company is even going so far as to claim the panel offers the most accurate colour reproduction of any LCD on the market - although this claim has yet to be independently validated.

Currently the display is only available in the US through a timed-exclusive deal with retailer NewEgg, where it is priced at an eyebrow-raising $1,199 (around £767 excluding taxes.) Details of a UK release have yet to be confirmed.

33 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
Mongoose132 27th June 2012, 11:50 Quote
Needs moah acronyms :D
coolius 27th June 2012, 11:58 Quote
isn't Quad HD generally regarded as 4*1920x1080 rather than just 4*1280x720 ?
Gareth Halfacree 27th June 2012, 11:59 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolius
isn't Quad HD generally regarded as 4*1920x1080 rather than just 4*1280x720 ?
No - officially, that's QFHD (Quad Full High Definition.) EDIT: Although 'Quad HD' is more properly termed WQHD - Wide Quad High Definition.
Jehla 27th June 2012, 12:21 Quote
Any chance of a review if it gets released over here? This is maybe the prettiest pc monitor about.
TheStockBroker 27th June 2012, 12:36 Quote
Bawww.

Came in here expecting a 4k display... I am dissapoint.
3lusive 27th June 2012, 12:38 Quote
I think you should have just put 1440p, or simply 2560x1440, instead of Quad HD, because with the advent of 4K screens around the corner people are already using the term Quad HD (as in 4x 1080p and not 4x 720p) to refer to 4K displays. I'v seen it numerous times across the net. Such as here and here.

I know you're technically correct, but it just helps un-muddy the water.
fdbh96 27th June 2012, 13:49 Quote
"Samsung has opted not to include an HDMI cable with the display."

I thought HDMI only supported 1920x1080 anyway.
GeorgeStorm 27th June 2012, 13:52 Quote
Wow that's pricey.
Must admit, when I saw Quad HD I was expecting more than 1440p....
Not sure why anyone would choose this over something like the U2711?
Gareth Halfacree 27th June 2012, 14:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by fdbh96
I thought HDMI only supported 1920x1080 anyway.
Nup - HDMI 1.4 is quite happy with 3840x2160 (which, interestingly, Wikipedia calls Quad HD, despite calling it QFHD elsewhere.)
Nikumba 27th June 2012, 15:21 Quote
Would rather stick with my Dell 27" IPS as it looks a lot better, not glossy frame. I really can not understand why monitor makers feel the need to make everything glossy.

Kimbie
The_Beast 27th June 2012, 16:16 Quote
Is PLS any better than IPS?


I was thinking of getting a 2nd U2410, put if PLS is better than IPS, I'll have to look at that route (*le wait for goodbytes to write a lengthy response explaining EVERYTHING)
Krikkit 27th June 2012, 16:20 Quote
Mmm... That's nice! Not sure why it's only got USB2 hub though, surely USB3 would be reasonable? It's not like the spec is new, and it's only a hub circuit squashed into a monitor casing.
3lusive 27th June 2012, 17:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Beast
Is PLS any better than IPS?

Just going off what I remember, it is extremely similar to IPS displays. However, in the displays which currently use PLS, they have better AG coating than found in typical IPS ones, such as the Dell Ultrasharps, as it is not as grainy or sparkly. This may be why they appear to have better contrast and black depth too.

I know Linus believes the PLS monitor he tried had the best viewing angles he'd ever seen.
Sloth 27th June 2012, 18:58 Quote
The bit about being able to play video and sound from one's phone while also charging it sounds pretty nifty, I have to say. Other than that I was expecting a higher resolution like GeorgeStorm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Article
Based on an In-Plane Switching (IPS) panel using new Plane Line Switching (PLS) technology with LED (LED) backlighting
http://data.whicdn.com/images/22280361/mother-of-god-meme_large.jpg
jrs77 27th June 2012, 19:18 Quote
Samsung SyncMaster S27A850D looks better imho with the thinner frame and square foot-stand. Also all black!

Allready available and cheaper using the same panel.
azrael- 27th June 2012, 19:29 Quote
There's really nothing tangible to recommend this monitor over the Dell U2711. That says something, doesn't it...
fdbh96 27th June 2012, 19:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by azrael-
There's really nothing tangible to recommend this monitor over the Dell U2711. That says something, doesn't it...

I suppose no one other than Samsung know what the image quality is like yet.
Gareth Halfacree 27th June 2012, 20:15 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth
<snip dual-acronym whoopsie>

Hah! That's what you get when you spell out Light-Emitting Diode (LED,) then think "nah, everyone knows what LED stands for."
streetuk 27th June 2012, 23:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikumba
Would rather stick with my Dell 27" IPS as it looks a lot better, not glossy frame. I really can not understand why monitor makers feel the need to make everything glossy.

Kimbie
Go walk into an Apple store tomorrow and compare the matte Macbook Pro's with a glossy Macbook Pro. Once you do you will understand why monitor makers feel the need to make everything glossy.
Elton 27th June 2012, 23:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by streetuk
Go walk into an Apple store tomorrow and compare the matte Macbook Pro's with a glossy Macbook Pro. Once you do you will understand why monitor makers feel the need to make everything glossy.

Why? Matte screens are brighter, but their usability is terrible. Any amount of sunlight ruins it. This might be why I stand by using eizo and NEC monitors almost exclusively.
3lusive 27th June 2012, 23:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elton
Why? Matte screens are brighter, but their usability is terrible. Any amount of sunlight ruins it. This might be why I stand by using eizo and NEC monitors almost exclusively.

You mean glossy. The reason is because it definitely does reduce the contrast and vibrancy of the display, once a matte coating is applied.

I have seen a glossy Apple Cinema and it does have amazing blacks and contrast which comparable IPS matte displays can't get near, and if I could be bothered to manage the light better I probably would prefer glossy over matte because of this reason.

However, I think a semi-glossy or very light matte coating is an excellent compromise.
Elton 27th June 2012, 23:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3lusive
You mean glossy. The reason is because it definitely does reduce the contrast and vibrancy of the display, once a matte coating is applied.

I have seen a glossy Apple Cinema and it does have amazing blacks and contrast which comparable IPS matte displays can't get near, and if I could be bothered to manage the light better I probably would prefer glossy over matte because of this reason.

However, I think a semi-glossy or very light matte coating is an excellent compromise.

Yes I meant glossy. By the way, most screens actually require a certain contrast setting to get the full gamut out. That said, the reason I can't stand glossy is the need to turn them up extremely bright to wash out the excess light. For me, I can't use extremely bright screens because of the eye strain. Hence my need to stick with matte monitors.
3lusive 27th June 2012, 23:34 Quote
Or just shut the curtains :). I know, though, I hate glossy displays as a general rule because they pick up too many reflections, and it's too difficult/annoying to manage the lighting in order to get a good experience all day round.

However, if it was possible to handle the light better, I would consider getting one. I was extremely impressed with the quality of the Apple I saw, and in a pitch black room it was gorgeous to look at.
streetuk 27th June 2012, 23:38 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elton
Yes I meant glossy. By the way, most screens actually require a certain contrast setting to get the full gamut out. That said, the reason I can't stand glossy is the need to turn them up extremely bright to wash out the excess light. For me, I can't use extremely bright screens because of the eye strain. Hence my need to stick with matte monitors.

It's obviously a personal choice then. I just felt that the glossy pro display was far more vibrant and the matte was grainy and dull (but still a good display). Just prefer glossy. I do hate seeing my reflection in my iPad though.

Interesting (whoever said "close your curtains") I find my matte Dell U27W11 to be far too bright on most settings besides 0. Sites like Facebook and Google Reader just wreck my retina.
3lusive 28th June 2012, 00:01 Quote
I meant close your curtains to prevent reflections on glossy displays.

I agree with you though. I also hate the dullness that thick matte coatings create, like the ones found on the Ultrasharps and many IPS displays. If people could see what they looked like without the coating, like you can for this U2711 that's had it's AG removed, or this U2312HM which has also had it removed, I think people would realise how much the coatings dull the overall vibrancy of the image.

I don't believe there's ever a need for that much coating (and thus that much nerfing of the display's contrast and vibrancy), which is why I prefer semi-glossy, but if I had to take a choice between the two I would still have to pick matte because reflections can destroy everything.

This is all the AG coating is:
kgKr4ofzWpY
The_Beast 28th June 2012, 00:05 Quote
The worst monitor: glossy TN


The best monitor: matte IPS(or similar)
3lusive 28th June 2012, 00:11 Quote
^In your opinion.

I missed the 'or similar' part (ninja edit? lol), but anyway some people do prefer glossy regardless of display type. I think some people on here would would choose PVA over IPS, name beginning with P :) (and I agree with him).
streetuk 28th June 2012, 00:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3lusive
I meant close your curtains to prevent reflections on glossy displays.

I agree with you though. I also hate the dullness that thick matte coatings create, like the ones found on the Ultrasharps and many IPS displays. If people could see what they looked like without the coating, like you can for this U2711 that's had it's AG removed, or this U2312HM which has also had it removed, I think people would realise how much the coatings dull the overall vibrancy of the image.

I don't believe there's ever a need for that much coating (and thus that much nerfing of the display's contrast and vibrancy), which is why I prefer semi-glossy, but if I had to take a choice between the two I would still have to pick matte because reflections can destroy everything.

This is all the AG coating is:
kgKr4ofzWpY

I know, what I meant was it's ironic that my matte requires the curtains to be open to tone down the brightness of the screen whereas a glossy you have to close it. Odd that we can't have the best of both worlds (maybe your links above are the best of both worlds, I'm assuming they're people who've removed the matte on the U2711, not looked yet...not sure i want to in case i end up doing it! )
3lusive 28th June 2012, 01:59 Quote
The vids and pics don't show the best of both worlds. They just show two matte IPS having their AG removed, but once this happens they are fully glossy displays.

In fact the U2711 and Apple Cinema use the same LG panel, so without its AG layer it is essentially an Apple Cinema.

The only way to get the best of both worlds is this: to get glossy but manage the light to get very minimal reflections, but also no contrast nerf. Or buy semi glossy for no reflections and only slight contrast nerf.

The problem with full mate, or heavy as it's sometimes called, is that it doesn't block anymore reflections than semi, but nerfs the vibrancy and contrast even more.

In reality though there are very few displays which offer semi gloss. Samsung's PLS one does though.

Sent from my HTC One S using Tapatalk 2
Guinevere 28th June 2012, 12:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
3840x2160 (which, interestingly, Wikipedia calls Quad HD, despite calling it QFHD elsewhere.)

Quick someone call wikipedia and tell him he got such a key detail wrong! How dare he charge us for the information and then get his acronyms wrong!

I'm well fed up with wikipedia, I very much doubt I'll renew my subscription this year!

It's about time the whole site was replaced with some sort of crowd sourced alternative approach. That way when such mistakes are spotted they could be discussed and corrected by anyone. Of course you'd have to lock it down 'a bit' to prevent abuse of key pages, but imagine the possibilities that would exist in an online encyclopaedia the likes of you or I could contribute to!
Gareth Halfacree 28th June 2012, 12:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinevere
[...] imagine the possibilities that would exist in an online encyclopaedia the likes of you or I could contribute to!
Yes, imagine. Without professional input and editorial oversight, it'd be riddled with small but confusing errors! Oh, wait... :p
GonzoRIP 30th June 2012, 23:33 Quote
finally getting some decent high res screens for the desktop. id kill for that resolution at 24"
3lusive 30th June 2012, 23:37 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GonzoRIP
finally getting some decent high res screens for the desktop. id kill for that resolution at 24"

What's wrong with 3 extra inches?
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