$525 2560x1600 Korean IPS Monitors

[kmiller8]

Someone on IRC was complaining about how 16:10 is master aspect ratio. blah blah blah. So I decieded to search eBay for 16:10 monitors, and low and behold, the infamous Korean 2560x1440 panels have a 30" 2560x1600 brother. I'm assuming these are just the same controller boards/cheapy cases, just with a different panel.

DVI-Only $525
http://www.ebay.com/itm/221148215610

DVI-Only $550
http://www.ebay.com/itm/130806017774

DVI/HDMI/VGA $645

DP/DVI/HDMI/VGA/RGB/Component/Speakers (Pro model) $675
http://www.ebay.com/itm/221057230823

For comparsion. The Dell U3011 is around $1100 on the net.

[damorgue]

I too am a knight of the 16x10 order. Unfortunately, these drop several of the advantages of the 27" 2560x1440 models.

[kmiller8]

orly, like what?

E: Also, I just noticed these have the AG coating

[nullstring]

interesting.

AG coating is possibly a deal breaker. Where do you read this?
EDIT: I do see it says non-glare. hmmm

[alaricljs]

What's the fascination with glossy screens?  I have enough glare issues with my AG display already, I couldn't imagine trying to deal with glossy.

[Binge]

These are expensive... you can get a catleap yakamashi on ebay for less and it's the same screen.

[Halverson]

These are expensive... you can get a catleap yakamashi on ebay for less and it's the same screen.

X2
And the slightly more expensive crossover are awesome. Mines solid, beautiful white metal case, and no dead pixels.

[kmiller8]

These are expensive... you can get a catleap yakamashi on ebay for less and it's the same screen.

This is 30" and a different aspect ratio, so more screen, and more pixels, for more money.

[Halverson]

These are expensive... you can get a catleap yakamashi on ebay for less and it's the same screen.

This is 30" and a different aspect ratio, so more screen, and more pixels, for more money.

Ahh bigger eh. 3" too big!

[kmiller8]

Ahh bigger eh. 3" too big!

Unless he was talking about this one http://www.ebay.com/itm/221148215610 I somehow looked over that one.

[damorgue]

What's the fascination with glossy screens?  I have enough glare issues with my AG display already, I couldn't imagine trying to deal with glossy.

All the anti glare does is to blur out all the glares and highlights, i.e. if there is a light source which would have had its reflection outside of the screen, it will be blurred out and creates a cloud of glare which can be seen in the screen. Basically, anti glare pics up all the light sources in a wide field of view and blurs them out. They also wash out the colours.

Compare this to one with a glossy finish, where the light sources are relfected only if they are directly visible as a reflection behind the viewer. I can arrange for them to not be visible, and then I have NO interference, as well as less washed out colours.

[alaricljs]

I do not have that ability.  Lots of windows with no way to block them (loft + skylights), no walls really.  With the amount of light coming at me, I become a light source.

[damorgue]

I do not have that ability.  Lots of windows with no way to block them (loft + skylights), no walls really.  With the amount of light coming at me, I become a light source.

The indians called it: "Curse of the white man."

Well, I guess that most people agree with you seen as there are far more matte displays than glossy these days.

[ed_avis]

In the CRT days an anti-glare coating was a thin coating applied to the glass which partially cancels out reflected light, or something - similar to the anti-reflection coatings used in spectacles or camera lenses.  Nowadays the front of a monitor is often plastic rather than glass (unless anyone makes plasma monitors?) but some similar coatings might be possible, doing more to avoid reflections than just blurring them.

I think the human visual system does a better job of ignoring a blurred reflection than a sharp one, when focusing on the surface of the screen, so I'd rather have the anti-glare even if all it does is blur the reflection a bit.  I wouldn't want to work in a darkened room or rearrange the light just because of the computer.

[TheSoulhunter]

Actually anti-refective coating of surfaces on LCD simply scatter the light by having a "less flat/even" midcro surface structure (think polished vs sandblasted).
So instead of reflecting beams of light of a given input angle at just a certain output angle (your eyes...) it will split em up to multiple ones etc.

Side effect #1 is that this surface will also scatter the light emitted from the LCD panel resulting in some amount of funky subpixel interpolation.
Side effect #2 is that in a bright environment all the scattered light reflected from the screen results in less low (worse) black levels.
Side effect #3 is that this surface will be overall less transparent (more "milky") resulting in a lower contrast.

Also some people seem to be capable to spot the micro structure itself and find it irritating...
Anyway, I prefer coated LCDs as I find reflections more irritating than the mentioned side effects

[longweight]

Man I wish that I could get one of these in the UK, I really want a 2560 x 1600 monitor for my desk at work!

[SmallFry]

Ahh bigger eh. 3" too big!

TWSS.

[kmiller8]

Man I wish that I could get one of these in the UK, I really want a 2560 x 1600 monitor for my desk at work!

the price is shipped worldwide, no

[nebo]

Having owned both a 30" and a 27" I like my 27" more. That said, the 30 was AG coated and the 27 was beautiful glossy so I am biased there. So pretty and all I use the colors for is running around Skyrim.


About 16:10 vs 16:9. A lot of console ports don't support 16:10 (which is the devs fault but whatever) and movies are in 16:9 or wider. 16:10 is more pixels, nobody can argue that, but it lost. I wish it didn't, but it did and they are slowly dying out. "HD" and 16:9 are interchangeable by media and advertising where people are forgetting that those old CRTs they had packed a "more HD" resolution than they have now. Ah the average consumer.

[longweight]

Man I wish that I could get one of these in the UK, I really want a 2560 x 1600 monitor for my desk at work!

the price is shipped worldwide, no

True but it works out to £420.00 to the UK. Which is a lot of risk plus import fees.

[damorgue]

About 16:10 vs 16:9. A lot of console ports don't support 16:10 (which is the devs fault but whatever) and movies are in 16:9 or wider. 16:10 is more pixels, nobody can argue that, but it lost. I wish it didn't, but it did and they are slowly dying out. "HD" and 16:9 are interchangeable by media and advertising where people are forgetting that those old CRTs they had packed a "more HD" resolution than they have now. Ah the average consumer.

Yes, I will admit that it lost the battel, but not the war. As a knight of the 16x10, I have observed what I believe to be a vast majority among the enthusiasts who prefer 16x10. I like it because working with an increasingly narrow screen is bad. 4:3 is even better for CAD, graphics, painting and all sorts of similar work. I can see typing would be advantageous even being horizontal. The ONLY area where I consider a wider aspect ratio to be better is for watching movies and the like.

Hopefully, we will see a split where high end monitors for working environment are of a more useful aspect ratio and consumer/gamer/casual/movie watching screens take on wahtever 21:9 they are launching next.

[TotalChaos]

I agree that 4:3 is better.


If I get a 2560x1600 monitor will it work with the onboard gfx chip of an Intel Core i5?

Any problems with that?

You guys have convinced me to get a normal monitor with no AntiGlare crap messing up my picture.

I have seen lots of Plasma monitors in the past that had no AG stuff.

I donno what monitor I will get but I do need a giant monitor of some sort for doing hardcore gfx work on.  I am currently using a 19" CRT 4:3

I am not really interested in any monitor that is smaller than 50"  Maybe I could suffer with only 42" if the 42" had massive advantages over any 50" competitor.

[Ragnorock]

Having spent twice as much on a used 30" cinema HD a few years ago, I will say that if you don't get any dead pixels from buying one of those, they've got to be fantastic value. I don't feel ripped off though, I love this monitor and can't say enough that 16:10 is the best compromise between 4:3 and 16:9's strengths.

[BossBorot]

If I get a 2560x1600 monitor will it work with the onboard gfx chip of an Intel Core i5?

Any problems with that?

The onboard gpu on the i5 is only capable of driving a 2560 monitor, at max res, via display port so you would have to go that route.

[TotalChaos]

If I get a 2560x1600 monitor will it work with the onboard gfx chip of an Intel Core i5?

Any problems with that?

The onboard gpu on the i5 is only capable of driving a 2560 monitor, at max res, via display port so you would have to go that route.

My brand new puter only came with HDMI and VGA. 

HDMI charges big royalties.  DisplayPort is free.  So why would they put on an HDMI connector but not a DisplayPort?

I'll probably just settle for some 1920x1080 monitor this time around.

[Hak Foo]

Someone should make an aftermarket "breakout box" that accepted component, VGA, etc. and scaled it to 2560x1440 or 1600.  Then you still get the fast performance of a scaler-free unit, and its low entry cost, with the benefits of being able to connect a console or other device.

[tp4tissue]

Someone should make an aftermarket "breakout box" that accepted component, VGA, etc. and scaled it to 2560x1440 or 1600.  Then you still get the fast performance of a scaler-free unit, and its low entry cost, with the benefits of being able to connect a console or other device.

are you serious? haha.... that's preposterous... and unpossible on the latency.

[Hak Foo]

No, the other inputs would have high latency, but the DVI would just be a wire pass through and add negligible to no latency.

[TheProfosist]

Having owned both a 30" and a 27" I like my 27" more. That said, the 30 was AG coated and the 27 was beautiful glossy so I am biased there. So pretty and all I use the colors for is running around Skyrim.


About 16:10 vs 16:9. A lot of console ports don't support 16:10 (which is the devs fault but whatever) and movies are in 16:9 or wider. 16:10 is more pixels, nobody can argue that, but it lost. I wish it didn't, but it did and they are slowly dying out. "HD" and 16:9 are interchangeable by media and advertising where people are forgetting that those old CRTs they had packed a "more HD" resolution than they have now. Ah the average consumer.

i use the extra sapce when editing video was especially important with 1920x1200 so yo ucoulshave the tru 1080p up and stil have some tool bars and stuff 16x10 isnt for comsumption its used for creation which is why it only used on computer monitors

o and if you  all wondering 16x9 isnt a true standard it just and average of film and 4:3 so you could easily watch both on the same screen with least black space both ways thing only started being produced in to because people started wondering why the whole screen wasnt always filled up.

[tp4tissue]

Having owned both a 30" and a 27" I like my 27" more. That said, the 30 was AG coated and the 27 was beautiful glossy so I am biased there. So pretty and all I use the colors for is running around Skyrim.


About 16:10 vs 16:9. A lot of console ports don't support 16:10 (which is the devs fault but whatever) and movies are in 16:9 or wider. 16:10 is more pixels, nobody can argue that, but it lost. I wish it didn't, but it did and they are slowly dying out. "HD" and 16:9 are interchangeable by media and advertising where people are forgetting that those old CRTs they had packed a "more HD" resolution than they have now. Ah the average consumer.

i use the extra sapce when editing video was especially important with 1920x1200 so yo ucoulshave the tru 1080p up and stil have some tool bars and stuff 16x10 isnt for comsumption its used for creation which is why it only used on computer monitors

o and if you  all wondering 16x9 isnt a true standard it just and average of film and 4:3 so you could easily watch both on the same screen with least black space both ways thing only started being produced in to because people started wondering why the whole screen wasnt always filled up.

now with the 30" 4k HD monitor.. ugh.... i'm torn...

[TheProfosist]

Having owned both a 30" and a 27" I like my 27" more. That said, the 30 was AG coated and the 27 was beautiful glossy so I am biased there. So pretty and all I use the colors for is running around Skyrim.


About 16:10 vs 16:9. A lot of console ports don't support 16:10 (which is the devs fault but whatever) and movies are in 16:9 or wider. 16:10 is more pixels, nobody can argue that, but it lost. I wish it didn't, but it did and they are slowly dying out. "HD" and 16:9 are interchangeable by media and advertising where people are forgetting that those old CRTs they had packed a "more HD" resolution than they have now. Ah the average consumer.

i use the extra sapce when editing video was especially important with 1920x1200 so yo ucoulshave the tru 1080p up and stil have some tool bars and stuff 16x10 isnt for comsumption its used for creation which is why it only used on computer monitors

o and if you  all wondering 16x9 isnt a true standard it just and average of film and 4:3 so you could easily watch both on the same screen with least black space both ways thing only started being produced in to because people started wondering why the whole screen wasnt always filled up.

now with the 30" 4k HD monitor.. ugh.... i'm torn...

huh where and how much? cause thats going to be pricy

[TheProfosist]

i do want the last pro one listed it says its 10bit can anyone confirm? http://www.ebay.com/itm/221057230823

[tp4tissue]

Having owned both a 30" and a 27" I like my 27" more. That said, the 30 was AG coated and the 27 was beautiful glossy so I am biased there. So pretty and all I use the colors for is running around Skyrim.


About 16:10 vs 16:9. A lot of console ports don't support 16:10 (which is the devs fault but whatever) and movies are in 16:9 or wider. 16:10 is more pixels, nobody can argue that, but it lost. I wish it didn't, but it did and they are slowly dying out. "HD" and 16:9 are interchangeable by media and advertising where people are forgetting that those old CRTs they had packed a "more HD" resolution than they have now. Ah the average consumer.

i use the extra sapce when editing video was especially important with 1920x1200 so yo ucoulshave the tru 1080p up and stil have some tool bars and stuff 16x10 isnt for comsumption its used for creation which is why it only used on computer monitors

o and if you  all wondering 16x9 isnt a true standard it just and average of film and 4:3 so you could easily watch both on the same screen with least black space both ways thing only started being produced in to because people started wondering why the whole screen wasnt always filled up.

now with the 30" 4k HD monitor.. ugh.... i'm torn...

huh where and how much? cause thats going to be pricy

it's like 31.5" or something, but it's 4k and it's from sharp I think.. coming out february.. Something about $5000.. but that's certainly not unreasonably priced..  I want to know how much the oled versions is though, because it seems like that's actually going to happen within 2013..

[BossBorot]

today lg had a 30" 4k monitor on display at ces

edit: also this intel roadmap is worth a look over

[TheProfosist]

i think when they say premium they mean like PREMIUM!

[tp4tissue]

i think when they say premium they mean like PREMIUM!

$5000 pretty much confirmed.. That's not bad at all.. very affordable for something you'll probably use for 3-4 years.

For example, women buy a $500 bag.. That's a complete waste of money, why? because it's pretty useless, and they need a new one every few months to keep up with the fashion.

A computer monitor... even at $5000, we use it EVERY GOD DAMN DAY....   For me, 8+ hours per day.... $5000 is a bargain.

[SmallFry]

i think when they say premium they mean like PREMIUM!

$5000 pretty much confirmed.. That's not bad at all.. very affordable for something you'll probably use for 3-4 years.

For example, women buy a $500 bag.. That's a complete waste of money, why? because it's pretty useless, and they need a new one every few months to keep up with the fashion.

A computer monitor... even at $5000, we use it EVERY GOD DAMN DAY....   For me, 8+ hours per day.... $5000 is a bargain.

I LoL'd. Somewhat of a good point with the handbag thing.

[TheProfosist]

that thing better be 10bit 16x10 for something that pricy

[tp4tissue]

that thing better be 10bit 16x10 for something that pricy

10 bit's not really that useful because it doesn't increase the color gamut of the monitor.. Just because you have a bigger lookup table, doesn't magically allow the monitor to display the colors that it can't replicate.  ) )

What we really really need are LASERS.. but that's prohibitively expensive..

I'm fine with 8bit, 4k, Non-glossy..   

[TotalChaos]

I paid $2400.00 for my last monitor based on the theory that I would use it for 10 years.  I have used it for 4+ years.  So far so good.

[tp4tissue]

I paid $2400.00 for my last monitor based on the theory that I would use it for 10 years.  I have used it for 4+ years.  So far so good.

monitors don't last 10 years..

They actually don't even last 5 years.. most are "done" in 3-4.. the back lighting essentially "gives"

"This really depends" on how much you use it though.. If you're the 2 hours a day guy, your monitor will last 10 years no problem..

I don't know how well the new LED stuff will be over time, but I'd assume Better than CCFL because they're not as hot.

[TheProfosist]

that thing better be 10bit 16x10 for something that pricy

10 bit's not really that useful because it doesn't increase the color gamut of the monitor.. Just because you have a bigger lookup table, doesn't magically allow the monitor to display the colors that it can't replicate.  ) )

What we really really need are LASERS.. but that's prohibitively expensive..

I'm fine with 8bit, 4k, Non-glossy..   

10 bits great especially when you have a 12bit lookup table aka ASUS PA246Q

[tp4tissue]

that thing better be 10bit 16x10 for something that pricy

10 bit's not really that useful because it doesn't increase the color gamut of the monitor.. Just because you have a bigger lookup table, doesn't magically allow the monitor to display the colors that it can't replicate.  ) )

What we really really need are LASERS.. but that's prohibitively expensive..

I'm fine with 8bit, 4k, Non-glossy..   

10 bits great especially when you have a 12bit lookup table aka ASUS PA246Q

but it's still 98% adobe rgb, which means it's no better than any other monitor with that spec 10bit or otherwise.

[TheProfosist]

that thing better be 10bit 16x10 for something that pricy

10 bit's not really that useful because it doesn't increase the color gamut of the monitor.. Just because you have a bigger lookup table, doesn't magically allow the monitor to display the colors that it can't replicate.  ) )

What we really really need are LASERS.. but that's prohibitively expensive..

I'm fine with 8bit, 4k, Non-glossy..   

10 bits great especially when you have a 12bit lookup table aka ASUS PA246Q

but it's still 98% adobe rgb, which means it's no better than any other monitor with that spec 10bit or otherwise.

find a non 10bit monitor that has 98% adobe RGB.

[TotalChaos]

I paid $2400.00 for my last monitor based on the theory that I would use it for 10 years.  I have used it for 4+ years.  So far so good.

monitors don't last 10 years..

They actually don't even last 5 years.. most are "done" in 3-4.. the back lighting essentially "gives"

You buy crappy monitors 

For me, a crappy monitor is one that dies in 8-10 years.
A good monitor is one that lasts forever.

"This really depends" on how much you use it though.. If you're the 2 hours a day guy, your monitor will last 10 years no problem..

My monitors are typically used 12 hours a day.  Though sometimes it is 20-24 hours a day, just depends.

I don't know how well the new LED stuff will be over time, but I'd assume Better than CCFL because they're not as hot.

I never bought a CCFL monitor in my whole life.

The last monitor I bought was a 61" DLP with LED backlight over 4 years ago.  I remember it was 1 month before the Chinese Summer Olympics.

Before that it was various CRT monitors.  My 19" and 17" and 15" and 14" CRT monitors all still work great, though some of the ones from the 1980s have broken power buttons.

My 19" CRT I got free and I donno how old it is... it might be less than 10 years old for all I know.

[tp4tissue]

that thing better be 10bit 16x10 for something that pricy

10 bit's not really that useful because it doesn't increase the color gamut of the monitor.. Just because you have a bigger lookup table, doesn't magically allow the monitor to display the colors that it can't replicate.  ) )

What we really really need are LASERS.. but that's prohibitively expensive..

I'm fine with 8bit, 4k, Non-glossy..   

10 bits great especially when you have a 12bit lookup table aka ASUS PA246Q

but it's still 98% adobe rgb, which means it's no better than any other monitor with that spec 10bit or otherwise.

find a non 10bit monitor that has 98% adobe RGB.

wfp3007hc, wfp3008, all 8bits... and I'm pretty sure all the monitors you mentioned are 10bit "overdrive" the chips are all 8bit

[TheProfosist]

that thing better be 10bit 16x10 for something that pricy

10 bit's not really that useful because it doesn't increase the color gamut of the monitor.. Just because you have a bigger lookup table, doesn't magically allow the monitor to display the colors that it can't replicate.  ) )

What we really really need are LASERS.. but that's prohibitively expensive..

I'm fine with 8bit, 4k, Non-glossy..   

10 bits great especially when you have a 12bit lookup table aka ASUS PA246Q

but it's still 98% adobe rgb, which means it's no better than any other monitor with that spec 10bit or otherwise.

find a non 10bit monitor that has 98% adobe RGB.

wfp3007hc, wfp3008, all 8bits... and I'm pretty sure all the monitors you mentioned are 10bit "overdrive" the chips are all 8bit

both of those are 10 bit if you do some digging. you have to remember to use 10 bit you need a workstation card because neither  nvidia nor amd have enabled it in their consumer cards even though they can do it. looks like the korean monitor im looking at uses the same panel as those monitors that you picked out and even the newer dells too.

Seems to me that you tend to need 10 bit to get that high of aAdobe RGB percentage

[missalaire]

27" Dell U2713HM 2560x1440 IPS LED Monitor w/ USB 3.0 Hub $629 + Free Shipping

http://slickdeals.net/permadeal/87864/dell-small-business-27-dell-u2713hm-2560x1440-ips-led-monitor-w-usb-3.0-hub

[kmiller8]

27" Dell U2713HM 2560x1440 IPS LED Monitor w/ USB 3.0 Hub $629 + Free Shipping

http://slickdeals.net/permadeal/87864/dell-small-business-27-dell-u2713hm-2560x1440-ips-led-monitor-w-usb-3.0-hub

http://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=28198.0

This thread is about 30" 2560 x 1600

[missalaire]

27" Dell U2713HM 2560x1440 IPS LED Monitor w/ USB 3.0 Hub $629 + Free Shipping

http://slickdeals.net/permadeal/87864/dell-small-business-27-dell-u2713hm-2560x1440-ips-led-monitor-w-usb-3.0-hub

http://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=28198.0

This thread is about 30" 2560 x 1600

Oh whoops, my bad.