Comments Locked

37 Comments

Back to Article

  • jj-lucifer - Wednesday, October 12, 2016 - link

    Sigh....when will we start seeing HDR monitors? 27-32" 1080p or 1440p monitor with HDR is all I need....
  • Toss3 - Wednesday, October 12, 2016 - link

    Couldn't agree more. Seems like these companies are basically trying to milk every dime they can out of these older panels before they go extinct when HDR and full coverage DCI-P3 displays start hitting the market. 99% sRGB - Who cares?
  • Thayios - Wednesday, October 12, 2016 - link

    That's exactly what they are doing. I'm stuck on my Ultrasharps until that happens
  • tuxRoller - Thursday, October 13, 2016 - link

    Forget dcip3. It's color space is basically a translated Adobe rgb (basically no increase in labspace coverage).
    I really hope they jump straight to rec2100 with its much greater ability to represent greens and required support of hdr (and attendant, more efficient, transfer function).
  • nirolf - Wednesday, October 12, 2016 - link

    I'm waiting for that too. I'm not buying anything that's not HDR ready. Does Windows 10 support HDR?
  • damianrobertjones - Wednesday, October 12, 2016 - link

    What you need to ask is... Does nVidia/AMD support HDR? Is yes then... Windows 10 supports HDR.
  • Thayios - Wednesday, October 12, 2016 - link

    Windows 10 Anniversary Edition supports HDR with the proper GPU
  • Visual - Thursday, October 13, 2016 - link

    I get what HDR means in image formats - basically just using floating-point color to be able to represent even slight differences in colors accurately; or in camera sensors - being able to capture those slight differences (though last I looked lots of "HDR" cameras actually cheat their way around by taking several shots at different exposure).

    But what does HDR mean in a monitor? What good does it do to me if the monitor is able to understand 0% light and 0.0001% light and 0.0000001% light as different light levels or even show them accurately if my eye does not distinguish them anyway?

    The value of HDR formats and cameras is in post-processing, when you can select to change the exposure and view different parts of the range so the slight differences become noticeable. Monitor support for HDR makes no sense to me.
  • nirolf - Thursday, October 13, 2016 - link

    Why do you say you cannot distinguish between colors? The human eye can see more colors than current displays can show. Check this out: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/content/point...

    The Pointer’s gamut is (an approximation of) the gamut of real surface colors as can be seen by the human eye, based on the research by Michael R. Pointer (1980). What this means is that every color that can be reflected by the surface of an object of any material is inside the Pointer’s gamut.

    [...]

    Rec. 709 / sRGB

    The ITU-R Recommendation BT. 709, or simply Rec. 709, standardizes the format of high-definition television, first approved in 1990. [...] When plotted in either the CIE 1931 xy or CIE 1976 u’v’ chromaticity diagram it immediately becomes apparent that this is a fairly small color space. In the CIE 1931 xy chromaticity diagram it covers only 33.5% of the chromaticities and 69.4% of Pointer’s gamut. In CIE 1976 u’v’ these values are 33.2% and 70.2% respectively.

    DCI-P3

    In the CIE 1931 xy chromaticity diagram the DCI-P3 color space covers 45.5% of all chromaticities and 86.9% of Pointer’s gamut. In the CIE 1976 u’v’ chromaticity diagram the coverage is 41.7% and 85.5% respectively.

    Rec. 2020

    The resulting colors space covers 63.3% of all chromaticities and 99.9% of Pointer’s gamut in the CIE 1931 xy chromaticity diagram, in the CIE 1976 u’v’ chromaticity diagram these are 57.2% and 99.7%.
  • Visual - Thursday, October 13, 2016 - link

    Ok, so it's actually about a wider color space, while I seem to associate the term HDR with distinguishing close values within the color space instead. Good to know. The linked article is an interesting read, thanks.
  • BiggerInside - Friday, October 28, 2016 - link

    HDR in film/video actually has more to do with expanded *brightness* (I.e. luminance) of the display. Think of a scene of snow and ice: on conventional displays, the brightest white is the max output of the display (as is the white background of this page), and everything else is darker to show texture/contrast. HDR assumes that there will be small areas of the screen (specular reflection of sunlight, for example, and even a few parts of he snow/ice you want to highlight to show texture) that will look more realistic if they are far brighter than anyone would ever reasonably make the background of a website. Obviously this needs new display tech (brighter backlights or OLED is part of it, but you also need enough data to fit the highlight range without losing shadow detail or seeing banding in saturated colors--so 10 bit is pretty much the minimum, where we can get usually get away with 6 bits for conventional displays and nobody notices.)
    "HDR" in digital photography is basically the opposite: fit super-bright highlights and detailed shadows within that~6bit luminance range of computer monitors and inkjet prints. If HDR displays are CD audio recordings of an orchestra playing music that goes from soft to very loud, then the photographer HDR stuff is like an AM radio broadcast of the same orchestra, where an engineer/device just cranks up the volume of the concert during the soft parts so you can hear it over the noise--but the loud parts never have the impact they originally did.
  • Xajel - Wednesday, October 12, 2016 - link

    Yeah, I'm waiting for one, an HDR enabled 21:9 1440p @120~144Hz, and better with as high as AdobeRGB it can get ( without bumping the price too much )...

    Damn why There's no monitor with both FreeSync & G-Sync, Damn you NVIDIA... Hope VESA standarize FreeSync as a mandatory ( not optional like now ) with new DP version ( sadly this will take time )...

    FreeSync is more common among displays duo to cheaper implementation, makers can easily add it to any monitor even cheap ones, and if rumors are true.. we will soon have FreeSync enabled TV's and Consoles using HDMI...
  • Valantar - Thursday, October 13, 2016 - link

    That sounds like my dream monitor, pretty much. 34" (ish) 21:9 3440x1440 at at least 90Hz (I don't really care about more - the most important thing is that the minimum FreeSync refresh rate is as low as possible (40-ish or lower, please)), HDR, AdobeRGB or "Display P3" (with Windows somehow miraculously handling colour like it should), and individual colour calibration.

    I can't imagine Nvidia not enabling FreeSync support down the line (given that they already use it in laptops, just with eDP and under the name "mobile G-Sync"), but they're understandably reluctant due to the probably significant investment they've made into R&D and production of G-Sync hardware and software. Must have been a pretty big blow to the team working on it when AMD trotted out their essentially free, works-with-existing-controllers, open standard-based solution. I can't really imagine Nvidia making another generation of G-Sync controllers.
  • Valantar - Wednesday, October 12, 2016 - link

    27-32" 1080p? Really? How far from the monitor do you sit? Windows at 100% scaling is meant to be 96 dpi - 1080p at 27" is 81, and at 32" is an abysmal 68. At 68 dpi, anyone with decent eyesight (not perfect, just not awful) will clearly see pixelation and aliasing at standard monitor viewing distances (~2-3 feet). Text would look absolutely awful. Not to mention that the UI would be HUGE. 2560x1440 at 32" is 91 dpi - tolerable at best.

    This is without mentioning that 96 dpi at 2 feet is far from ideal - it's more of a lowest common denominator in terms of looking ok no matter your eyesight. On the other hand, Windows scaling still needs to improve to allow for usability of higher DPI monitors for people with worse eyesight.

    I'm with you on HDR, though. For me, 4k/UHD at normal monitor sizes (less than 30" 16:9, or 34" 21:9) makes little sense today - I'd rather have higher frame rates at an already okay pixel density at 2560x1440 (/3440x1440). And rendering 2560x1440 HDR will still be less computationally expensive than 4k non-HDR. I'm not saying that high DPI is meaningless on computer monitors - improved text clarity is not something to scoff at - just that (for gaming) it's too hard to run as of today, for very little percieved gain.

    1080p outside of TVs and laptop screen sizes should just stop being a thing. Give us HDR, reasonable display densities, remove the meaningless added price for FreeSync, and we'd be golden.
  • Icehawk - Wednesday, October 12, 2016 - link

    Huh? 27" 1080 monitors have been around forever and work fine. The UI is just right for me and it isn't excessively large. I have a 1440 as well and I had to scale the OS because everything was tiny. I keep thinking about getting a 32" 1440 which wouldn't require me to scale.
  • Valantar - Wednesday, October 12, 2016 - link

    That they've been around forever is not an argument for them being good. You might say the same for 20" 1600x900 monitors ...

    And sure, 1080p at 27" is passable. Just not good - even if the UI size is right for you, you can't argue against the pixel density being awfully low, causing pixelation and aliasing. Then again, that was the smallest of the display sizes mentioned, and the one I had the least issues with. My main issue was with the prospect of 32" 1080p panels. Too large to use comfortably at a desk (unless you mainly use the centre part of it) while having abysmally low dpi? Ugh.

    1080p is good on a 50" TV because you sit 10+ feet away from it. At two-three feet, 1080p at anything above 27" would really start to lok bad.
  • Icehawk - Wednesday, October 12, 2016 - link

    We can both agree on 32" 1080p being a terrible idea for any normal use of a monitor - although a few of the old ladies at my office would probably love it.
  • Haawser - Wednesday, October 12, 2016 - link

    'Meaningless added price for FreeSync' ?? Huh ? It's *G-Sync* that costs an arm and a leg.
  • Valantar - Thursday, October 13, 2016 - link

    There's still a price premium for FreeSync displays - just not as big of one as for G-Sync. Which is what makes absolutely zero sense - given that the hardware differences between a FS and non-FS display are practically zero. While I do get that there's a premium for higher refresh rates, a 60-75Hz FS display shouldn't cost substantially more than a similarly specced non-FS one. Given that you can implement FreeSync with off-the-shelf components and firmware, the price premium ought to be nearly zero - which it isn't. Hopefully this will happen soon. Making a PC display today without FS seems pointless to me.
  • Meteor2 - Thursday, October 13, 2016 - link

    Remind me, which DP standard is needed for HDR?

    Good to see USB-C being used properly.
  • Meteor2 - Thursday, October 13, 2016 - link

    ...for 4K, 1.3. It's a pity Thunderbolt 3 only supports 1.2.
  • jwcalla - Wednesday, October 12, 2016 - link

    no vesa mount?
  • dishayu - Wednesday, October 12, 2016 - link

    "HP is also promoting that the “sRGB color accuracy exceeds 99 percent” which sounds like they don’t mean what they are saying. Accuracy is generally measured in Delta E, where lower is better, and gamut coverage is measured in percentage."

    Damn. Brutal, but fair.
  • zodiacfml - Wednesday, October 12, 2016 - link

    More likely a new marketing employee trying to improve or correct (maybe unintentionally) the grammar submitted to him/her by the product engineers.
  • Valantar - Thursday, October 13, 2016 - link

    That's how journalism is supposed to work. Far too many (tech) journos just regurgitate press releases. They're paid to be expert commentators, and should act as such.
  • Alistair - Wednesday, October 12, 2016 - link

    Looks like it is in between the LG UD68 and UD88 ($399 and $599). The UD88 has the adjustable stand and the usb c, but both monitors have a VESA mount that this one lacks, but this one looks more beautiful.
  • Alistair - Wednesday, October 12, 2016 - link

    I meant to say those LG prices are sale prices, so this monitor is cheaper at MSRP and has all the features except the VESA mount. Color me interested.
  • Death666Angel - Wednesday, October 12, 2016 - link

    LG UD58 27"/4K/FreeSync is available for 430€ in Germany. The difference to the UD68 seems to be just slimmer bezels? And that one (UD68) is available for 460€.
    HP currently lists this monitor as "MSRP 846,09 € - sale 638,99 €" on their German website. So that is a big joke. You pay at least 200€ extra just for USB-C connection. Which doesn't matter for a lot of users.
    I'm in the same boat as most people here. I have a 110Hz IPS 1440p monitor. Next one needs to be IPS with higher resolution (1440p 21:9 or 4k) with refresh rate over 90Hz, FreeSync (with a decent range and no added lag) and low lag (as this one has pretty much no lag due to the simple electronics involved and only one input).
  • guachi - Wednesday, October 12, 2016 - link

    My first thought was to the LGUD68 and 88 as well. Largely because I *own* the UD88.

    $499 is a lot of monitor for the price.
  • damianrobertjones - Wednesday, October 12, 2016 - link

    "As already mentioned, this 27-inch 4K IPS FreeSync display will be price at JUST $499"

    JUST $499? Come on this could be far, far cheaper and we all know it.
  • Valantar - Wednesday, October 12, 2016 - link

    "(..) price [sic] at just $499". Am I the only one who is kind of stunned by monitor price development in recent years? Way back when I bought my Dell U2711, it was REALLY expensive among home monitors - at around $500. Sure, it was 2560x1440 factory calibrated 99% Adobe RGB IPS at 27" at a time when the standard was 22-24" 1920x1080 TN with no colour calibration (and probably ~70% sRGB). But those were generally $100-200. And with the commoditization of IPS, production costs are now far lower. Sure, the U2711 was cheap for its class of monitor. But it was still possible to sell at that price - in 2011.

    Newegg has 24-25" IPS 1920x1080 monitors at $170. This isn't bad (although I'm not looking at colour specs here). Add $100, you get 2560x1440 at the same size. But to get 2560x1440 27" non-TN from a major brand (HP, Acer, BenQ), there's an additional ~$100. This makes little sense to me. Sure, 27" panels require more materials. But they are lower density, which makes them easier to make and gives higher yields. The increase in area from 24-27" is just ~26%, which really doesn't add up in terms of adding another $100 (~40%) to the price (with the same panel technology and resolution).

    Given the explosive growth in production of high-DPI panels and IPS (and similar) display technologies in recent years - with the commoditization this brings with it - I'd expect the _average_ 27" 2560x1440 non-TN monitor today to be below $300. Instead, I'd have to pay MORE today to get an equivalent* monitor to my U2711 than I did in 2011. Say what now?

    *(yes, it would be LED-based and thus more power efficient, and probably have a better display coating. That's it for improvements, though)
  • Death666Angel - Wednesday, October 12, 2016 - link

    You realize this is 4k, right? So you don't have to pay more for the same monitor today. 27"/IPS/1440p is pretty cheap compared to years passed.
    Although I have to say, 500 USD for the Dell U2711 in 2010 was a bargain. In Germany, it launched at a street price of 1000€. I paid 580€ (on sale) for the Samsung S27A850D, their first PLS 1440p monitor, in 2012 and the competing Dell U2713HM was about 650€ at the time. I sold it in 2014 for 310€ and bought a Korean B-Grade PLS 1440p DVI-only monitor for 290€ incl. shipping, overclockable to 110Hz. That was a bargain.
    Today I can get decent (A-Grade panels) 27"/IPS/1440p monitors from German shops for anything between 250€ and 400€. That's a great selection of quality/price/features and something for everyone. I'm pretty happy with where the prices are at today and didn't expect it to be lower. Average (and mean, funnily enough) of the 10 lowest cost 27"/IPS/1440p monitors on a comparison site is 311€. So a drop of about 50% in price in a 4 year span is quite something in my opinion, especially since there isn't such rapid development as with chip technology and material cost is ~constant in all 27" panels.
    FYI, price conversion is usually 1 USD = 1 Euro, what with markups and added taxes.
  • Valantar - Thursday, October 13, 2016 - link

    I'm in Norway, just converting to USD to make things easier for the (mostly) US commenters here. I paid around 5000NOK for the U2711, including 25% VAT, I guess that was closer to $650 USD (without VAT) with the currency of the time. The Krone has dropped pretty significantly in later years.

    And sure, prices have dropped somewhat. But you're ignoring quite a few aspects here. Sure, those monitors you list are 27" IPS 1440p. But do they even cover the full sRGB spectrum, let alone AdobeRGB? Are they individually calibrated? Do they have proper adjustable stands (not just tilt)? I very, very much doubt it. Even this HP has a shitty non-adjustable stand - for $500!

    What I'm saying is this: monitors - even decently nice ones - used to be 20-30% of the price of a decent PC. Now they're more like 50-100% of the price. And while you get more premium features, I don't see this as a good thing.
  • zodiacfml - Wednesday, October 12, 2016 - link

    Great specs.
    Next year though, we will see a similar one only with an updated interface.
    How come we still don't have Display Port 1.3 on monitors?
  • flashpowered - Thursday, October 13, 2016 - link

    UHD and USB-C single cable connection including charging is exactly what I'm looking for, however I want this in a 24" display. This is encouraging though, and I assume similar displays won't be far behind.
  • Varezhka - Thursday, October 13, 2016 - link

    This look like a very nice display, especially since I was looking to get a USB-C compatible display.
    I do wish, though, that it had a USB hub capability like LG UD88. Having just one cable to connect to my laptop would've been quite convenient.
  • jens_anand - Tuesday, December 6, 2016 - link

    This should have been available for order now, but I can't find it anywhere. Does anyone know the status of this monitor?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now