1st Sharp PN-K321 4K Monitor Review: 3000$ Joke

N

NCX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
6,224
Pure PC Review (Use Google or Chrome to translate)

A few highlights:

+Fast pixel response times
+26ms lag measured with an oscilloscope=only a few ms slower than many of the multi-input 1440-1600p monitors
+Glow is minimal
-Insultingly low 120hz LED PWM Dimming Frequency (Side Effects). Video with flicker
-Possible PWM Lottery (Some videos with the Sharp are PWM Free, such a low frequency should be extremely obvious on camera)
-Awful preset gamma

The Asus & Dell use 240hz LED PWM Dimming Frequencies which is still insulting considering the price.
 
Last edited:
I dunno why PWM means you shouldn't buy a monitor, nor why it's so horrible. If it bothers you, fine, makes sense to avoid models that use it. But if it doesn't(which puts you in the vast majority) who really cares?

Every monitor I've owned for the past 5 years has used PWM, and I don't notice or care, and selling this idea that it's horrifically evil and makes a monitor a bad buy is just totally absurd.
 
It's a 3,000$ monitor with a 5,000$ MSRP marketed to professionals. Most 150$ IPS have 2x higher frequencies. Flicker should be quite obvious when viewing most content since the frequency is so low, and the low frequency effects motion clarity. Lastly, the possible PWM lottery is insulting and shady business practice, especially when considering the price.
 
Sancus said:
I dunno why PWM means you shouldn't buy a monitor, nor why it's so horrible. If it bothers you, fine, makes sense to avoid models that use it. But if it doesn't(which puts you in the vast majority) who really cares?

Every monitor I've owned for the past 5 years has used PWM, and I don't notice or care, and selling this idea that it's horrifically evil and makes a monitor a bad buy is just totally absurd.
Click to expand...

What is absurd is selling monitor for few thousands with PWM worse than $200 Benqs
 
Sancus said:
I dunno why PWM means you shouldn't buy a monitor, nor why it's so horrible. If it bothers you, fine, makes sense to avoid models that use it. But if it doesn't(which puts you in the vast majority) who really cares?

Every monitor I've owned for the past 5 years has used PWM, and I don't notice or care, and selling this idea that it's horrifically evil and makes a monitor a bad buy is just totally absurd.
Click to expand...

It depends on the type of back light and frequency, it's less noticeable with a CCFL back light.
The problematic part about the sharp is the combination of low frequency PWM and LED, it is very unlikely that you have used a monitor with a back light flickering as strongly as the sharp model.

It's not necessarily a direct disqualification for all users, and if set to a low brightness level the LED strobing at 120Hz might even have a positive effect on motion blur.
Not to forget if monitors are set to full brightness there won't be a PWM effect.

But as with high input-lag that would disqualify a display for serious gamers a low PWM frequency does the same for other usage patterns.
A gamer won't like getting killed before even seeing the enemy on screen.
And others dislike the idea of staring into a light to bright to work comfortably or strobing at 120Hz 10 hours per day.

PWM is like input-lag and the 4K sharp has a PWM as bad as a 10 year old TNs viewing angles. For the intended user base it's a joke in the same way as a gaming monitor with 5 frames of lag would be.


... and.
Some cameras not seeing the flicker does not mean there's a PWM lottery.
It is possible the monitors are running at full brightness in the videos.
 
Sancus said:
I dunno why PWM means you shouldn't buy a monitor, nor why it's so horrible. If it bothers you, fine, makes sense to avoid models that use it. But if it doesn't(which puts you in the vast majority) who really cares?

Every monitor I've owned for the past 5 years has used PWM, and I don't notice or care, and selling this idea that it's horrifically evil and makes a monitor a bad buy is just totally absurd.
Click to expand...

Think of it this way: A percentage of the population is negatively and measurably affected by PWM at frequencies such as this. This does not mean that the rest are unaffected, but that the effects are small enough to go unnoticed in most people or are attributed to other causes.

Perhaps for some person the only effect is a decrease in reading speed of 10%. Is that significant? For some people it might be. We also do not know what the effects of prolonged exposure (i.e. years) to flickering might be, particularly as maximum backlight brightness increases. Other manufacturers have shown that it is possible and not difficult to produce non-PWM backlighting, so there are few real incentives to use it.

Benny said:
It's not necessarily a direct disqualification for all users, and if set to a low brightness level the LED strobing at 120Hz might even have a positive effect on motion blur.
Click to expand...

For strobing to work well it needs to occur at the refresh frequency (60Hz here), and occur in the proper part of the refresh cycle after the pixel transitions are complete. If not properly synced the strobing could occur in the worst part of the refresh cycle, giving worse blurring.


NCX:
Thanks for posting the link.

Also, Google translate produces some interesting results for this review::)
"if silver plating was as strong as in normal IPS-ah, glowing horns during labor could really tease."
 
Haha if You need any clarification on translation just ask - it's my native language after all :D
 
I'm sure this is a really stupid question, buuuuut

Isn't 120Hz PWM dimming practically the same thing as lightboost? >_>

I mean, I guess the monitor only accepts 60hz input but still.
 
Isn't 120Hz PWM dimming practically the same thing as lightboost? >_>

if monitor accepted 120Hz then it would be something like lightboost
but with lightboost what is important is right moment impulse is shown which is exactly when frame is drawn completely and also LightBoost and other strobed displays have much brighter LEDs to compensate for brightness loss due to light being not shown most of the time

such 120Hz monitor with 120Hz PWM that was not designed for it would be very dark or blur reduction would not be very good at bright-enough brightness levels

anyhow, this is not gaming monitor as it is slow, have big input lag and only 60Hz. This is monitor for people that need bigger resolution to either have nice fonts or do some CAD. In both cases 120Hz PWM is just ridiculous as at that rate with LEDs it is too much visible and can irritate a lot of people, give em head aches, eye aches, etc So it is overall bad design and I wouldn't recommend this monitor to anyone...

ps. Polish is my native language too. Google Translate is very bad at translating to and from it because: it is one of the most difficult languages
Polski rządzi i basta, kurwa jego mać :)
 
NCX said:
The frequency remains the same when using the maximum brightness.
Click to expand...

It's possible that at full brightness there is no "off" period, in which case the frequency doesn't matter.

At less than full brightness while the frequency doesn't change the "off" period gets longer as you dim the display. The dimmer the display, the easier it is to see the flicker.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top