NEC PA271W - When Accuracy and Consistency Matter
by Chris Heinonen on May 1, 2012 1:55 PM ESTNEC PA271W - Display Uniformity
As we’ve mentioned, NEC goes to great lengths with their PA271W display to make it as uniform as possible. With the sacrifices in maximum light output we hope that we will see a measurable difference on the NEC in both brightness and color uniformity.
The brightness uniformity chart shows results that are far and away the best I have measured to date. The total deviation from the maximum to the minimum value is only 10 nits, and we are used to seeing a swing of 30 or even more nits on this test. The average deviation is only 1.66%, so this is a really fantastic result showing that NEC has managed to engineer a more uniformly bright panel than anyone else.
Measuring the black uniformity is harder, as we have no 200 nits target that the white uniformity has. In this case we wind up with an average black level of 0.35 nits, but a higher standard deviation of 18.7%. The issues fall in the upper-right area of the screen which also had the brightest areas in the white uniformity testing, so there might be a little more light leakage coming in from that area of the panel it seems. Note that this non-uniformity will likely vary by panel as well. Given that the panel is uniformly lit, and that affects the color accuracy to a great deal, I would expect the panel to have a fairly consistent dE across the display.
The NEC delivers here again. We wind up with average and median dE values of 1.84 and 1.81, and a standard deviation of only 0.27 dE. The upper right corner seems to have a bit of an issue again, likely due to that lighting uniformity issue, but the rest of the panel is remarkably close together. The colors are all uniform in error across the screen and the issue seems to be a slight rise in grayscale error as you move away from the center. Compared to any other panel I have reviewed, the NEC is far more uniform and will exhibit less of a color shift across the unit, which is important on a screen this size. It still isn’t perfect by any means, but it’s better than anything else I have tested.
I also realized with this review that the vertical axis here was shifting between each review, so I’m going to keep this at 8 for this review, and then see going forward if that is correct. This will make it easier to compare across different displays.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
69 Comments
View All Comments
SlyNine - Tuesday, May 1, 2012 - link
CRTs had their own problems. Geometry not lining up, convergence. CRTs were far from perfect.Whats sad is manufactures completely abandoned the market. I would probably have been using CRTs up until this 120hz LCD if I actually had an option.
Dantte - Tuesday, May 1, 2012 - link
funny you say this. I'm still using a NEC FP2141 CRT as my main gaming monitor, but this is changing as of this week. I just ordered an Asus 27" 120Hz VG278H, I hope it doesnt disappoint.Sabresiberian - Wednesday, May 2, 2012 - link
Ugh I couldn't stand that monitor. 1920x1080 on a 27" screen? No way, those pixels are the size of a truck.That, of course, would probably be a different story at television viewing distance. At monitor distance? Not for me.
It's hard though; 2560x1440 and 60 Hz, or 1920x1080 at 120Hz? Frankly, I don't like either option very much. I'm used to 60Hz though, so I decided on 2560x1440 and bought a Dell U2711 (a few months before the HP was available). Let me tell you, as someone whose other monitor is a Sony GDM FW900 CRT, I'm very pleased with the U2711.
In my mind, the picture quality of the best CRTs still is overall better than the best LCDs, and I, like you, can only wonder at where they would be if development had continued. Still, I think the LCD has a better future, so I'm not complaining too much. I just wish they'd get on with building better quality ones (especially better refresh rates).
The main advantages, of course, are price and size. The Sony FW900 was $2500 back in the early 2000's, and 21-22" was about the limit, and it's hard for me to imagine we could have a high quality 27" or 30" CRT at a price I could afford (not to mention the weight of such a beast!). In a way, it was fortuitous that the CRT industry pretty much died, because I probably would never have been able to buy an FW900 otherwise. (I was able to get mine for about $700, refurbished and with a one year warranty, about 3 years ago.)
Size is a big factor, for me, and the reason I won't buy another CRT, even the fabulous FW900. There are of course other factors. I'm leaning towards a 30" for my next purchase - but frankly, again, I'm not happy with my options. Current 30" monitors have an acceptable pixel pitch, for me, but just barely, and it's really going to stand out since I have the better one in the 27" 2560x1440 format.
;)
Dracusis - Wednesday, May 2, 2012 - link
I have a Dell WFP2707 which is 27" 1920x1200, the pixel pitch is perfect for me, any smaller and I'd be leaning in too far to read things and wouldn't be able to "see" everything at once. IMO it's a better match than 2560x1440 and it's a lot easier to drive at native res for games - and with all the cheap shader based AA options now you really don't notice the pixels at all. Dot pitch is no bigger than the old 19" 1280x1024 displays. Generally IO'm about 2.5 ft away form my display when using it..Also, as a designer, pixels are my stock in trade so I kinda like being able to see them If I lean in close.
dragonsqrrl - Friday, September 27, 2013 - link
...wowIllegalTacos - Monday, May 14, 2012 - link
I have that monitor and I really like it. The pixels are large, as Sabresiberian said, but personally I am not bothered by it. I went from 60hz to 120hz so I was grinning at the fluid motion of dragging windows around. Since you're probably going to be playing 3D games, I'll just mention it's awesome. If you aren't on the Nvidia 3D forum, here's the link <http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showforum=209&g...I'd suggest Crysis 2, Battlefield 3, and Trine 2 for great 3D. The 3D vision forum does have plenty of suggestions though. I hope you enjoy it!
Also, I didn't get that weird oval effect a lot of people reported. Apparently ASUS fixed that with the new batches, but it's still best to keep an eye out for it.
<http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1653278> Link to the relevant thread.
DanNeely - Tuesday, May 1, 2012 - link
Once mass market consumers and professionals abandoned CRTs there weren't enough users left to maintain production lines.Sabresiberian - Wednesday, May 2, 2012 - link
I think it was the other way around; the industry jumped on the LCD bandwagon and didn't even try to compete with the CRT. The general public was largely lead by the nose to make the change.;)
cacca - Wednesday, May 2, 2012 - link
LCD are the biggest Con/Swindle of the latest 15 years.So far we are not yet at the same level of the past CRT, you can imagine how crappy were LCDs at that time.
Basically they blackmailed reviews and created the myth of coolness for the LCD.
They were indeed thinner and lighter, really god send in this area, but utterly crap and pricey.
If they had put the same effort for the crt and short neck technologies... well we would had better crt, heavier but with no doubt superior to the LCD we have now.
JonScaife - Wednesday, May 2, 2012 - link
I had some nice CRTs considering my budget (Samsung 700IFT and Iiyama VM Pro 454 spring to mind) but I prefer my HP ZR24w now to any CRT I had then - for 1 simple reason - eye strain. I put it down to the flickering on CRTs, even at 100Hz on a 17" screen it would get me after a few hours. For the vast vast majority a "consumer" (i.e. cheap) 17 or 19" flat panel now is a huge leap from the 14 and 15" "consumer" CRTs they've replaced. Geometry was always an issue with CRTs too - and only gets tougher to do the bigger the screen gets. Just try looking at a PC display on a CRT TV, even an HD CRT TV (yes, they made them, I have one!) - the geometry is awful. Good geometry large size CRTs have always been like rocking-horse dung - and were priced accordingly.