Nixeus Vue 27" ISP Display 2560*1440

chrisheinonen said:

As Peter says, using DCR would improve the contrast ratio, but IMO it also destroys image quality so I'd never enable it. It isn't subtle or adjustable, it's just a massive gamma adjustment that makes the image totally blown out. For the backlighting issue, my unit had an issue that a few in the first run did, so they're fixing that this week for me, and I'll retest it and see if that fixes it, and if that affects the contrast at all.

Click to expand...

I agree with you on DCR - if a monitor cant' produce decent blacks and contrast levels by traditional calibration methods there's something wrong and a bandaid like that isn't an acceptable fix. It'll be interesting to read your update - I know there was a lot of buzz about this monitor.

Why are the contrast ratios so poor on this particular model when it is using the same panel as the other Korean 27" models and the Apply Cinema display? Something just seems odd about this review.

loafer87gt said:

Why are the contrast ratios so poor on this particular model when it is using the same panel as the other Korean 27" models and the Apply Cinema display? Something just seems odd about this review.

Click to expand...

As I said in the review, I went to a more strenuous testing method for contrast, using an ANSI grid that prevents overly aggressive DCR from working. Since that is more like real world content, where you'll have blacks against a bright area, it's more indicative of real-world performance. However it also means you can't directly compare the previous model results here, and I make that point as well. I'd rather the data be better going forward than to stick to a way of doing it to keep all the data uniform.

By the same manner, you could say every 27" panel should be as uniform as the NEC display is, since they all get the panel and backlight from LG, but NEC has extensive electronics and testing in there to better regulate the backlighting system and have it be more uniform than anyone else. Really, it probably boils down to cost. There might be a Nixeus unit that scores 700:1 on contrast, because of a better panel or more uniform lighting, but I don't get 10 panels to test and average the results (nor would I be able to do that). A lot can be done with electronics to make a panel perform better, but that costs money.

It's also using a different coating than all the other displays. I could be possibly, though highly unlikely, that the AG coating blocks some light from escaping the panel. So if you drop your black level from 0.300 to 0.200, and the peak from 250.00 to 249.90 (if it only absorbs a TINY amount), that changes a contrast ratio from 833:1 to 1250:1. That's a huge change from a relatively minor adjustment. Similarly if the new testing means that some light leaks in, so your black level is now 0.300 instead of 0.250, you have the new contrast reading, but the monitors might actually have performed identically.

Really, trying to test the exact same way, every single time, on a monitor or other component where outside factors can interfere is really hard to do. Hopefully the new ANSI testing helps provide more real-world relevant results, but at the expense of being certain how the Nixeus would have compared to an older display.

chrisheinonen said:

As I said in the review, I went to a more strenuous testing method for contrast, using an ANSI grid that prevents overly aggressive DCR from working. Since that is more like real world content, where you'll have blacks against a bright area, it's more indicative of real-world performance. However it also means you can't directly compare the previous model results here, and I make that point as well. I'd rather the data be better going forward than to stick to a way of doing it to keep all the data uniform.

Click to expand...

Yes, I noticed this comment about not being able to directly compare the results to previous reviews. However, the next thing I see in the review is a chart comparing the results to previous monitors.

Did you go back and retest all those monitors with the new methodology? If not, then what were you thinking including the comparison?

The black looks very black to me. Not washed out at all. Sitting next to my Samsung MVA panel they are very similiar.

I have no problem with the black levels or the detail in dark scenes on this monitor. I have found it to be perfectly suitable and have ordered 2 more. In talking to the people at Nixeus, the majority of people buying these are using them for productivity rather than gaming. Those in the financial industry are buying multiples of them. Programmers are also purchasing them. I would like to see how a person that has an Apple Cinema Display views this monitor just as a point of interest. I still find it amazing in gaming.

I think items like this should be rated in terms of how they stack up against other items in their price category, just like we do with video cards!!! A more apples-to-apples comparison.

People that are using these for productivity do not have the time to waste if there is a problem and having to send it overseas and have that kind of hassle to deal with.

tony-kun said:

Yes, I noticed this comment about not being able to directly compare the results to previous reviews. However, the next thing I see in the review is a chart comparing the results to previous monitors.

Did you go back and retest all those monitors with the new methodology? If not, then what were you thinking including the comparison?

Click to expand...

Once a monitor is tested and the review goes up, the monitor goes back a couple days later. I only keep it after the review is up in case a comment suggests looking into something that I might have not seen. I can't retest anything that's already been done, I can only do it differently going forward. So that is the choice of no data, or data that isn't quite directly comparable with the caveat listed. I chose the later. I also did the same when I switched from the i1Display2 that was being used to an i1Pro, and will in the future if I change calibration software. To me having more data is always a bonus, but that means people will be certain to interpret the wrong way as well.

Chrisheinonen
Once a monitor is tested and the review goes up, the monitor goes back a couple days later. I only keep it after the review is up in case a comment suggests looking into something that I might have not seen. I can't retest anything that's already been done, I can only do it differently going forward. So that is the choice of no data, or data that isn't quite directly comparable with the caveat listed. I chose the later. I also did the same when I switched from the i1Display2 that was being used to an i1Pro, and will in the future if I change calibration software. To me having more data is always a bonus, but that means people will be certain to interpret the wrong way as well.

Click to expand...

When we think about it for a moment we all have to change to reflect the times. Crysis was a good benchmark to test with in its day but we have moved away because there are different, more accurate ways of looking at things as much as we would like to hold on to a standard to make our comparisons by. I am very happy with the purchase of the Nixeus . As such, I bought 2 more and will be overjoyed to get them in about 2 weeks. I would be interested to see how the other lower cost monitors stack up such as the Auria, Catleap, Overlord, etc. It will be interesting to see objective info about the "lag issue" when a monitor has more than a single input and if it can really effect gameplay (on these monitors). Thanks for the review and the explanation. We all need a slap on the side of the head sometimes.