32" 120 Hz IPS LCD

S

shurcooL

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Messages
1,125
It also supports multi-touch, up to 10 fingers.

But! A huge let down, IMO, is its fairly low resolution for the size, 1920x1080. =( Had it been 2560x1600, then it'd be really worth drooling over.

imagearl.jpg


3M C3266PW

Edit: As dowant120hz pointed out below, it turns out this is actually a 60 Hz monitor. They seem to be using the "refresh rate" term incorrectly on the product marketing page.
 
Last edited:
Two things, with the legions [H]ere that have/had the 37" Westy monitors, 1080P is hardly useless, not to mention those here using 32"/37"/40"/42" TV's as monitors.

Also, had it been the higher resolution, the price would have been astronomically higher, rendering it even more "useless".

Just my 2c,


Edit: Meant to say that this display is a step in the right direction imho, i hope this stuff goes mainstream to the point where it becomes affordable for all. Thanks for posting it OP.
 
Last edited:
Fair enough.

It's just that I am coming from a 30" 2560x1600 60 Hz monitor, and when I first saw the words 32" and 120 Hz I got excited, just to be let down by 1080p resolution. I just can't make that kind of downgrade. I mean, if I were to get a 120 Hz monitor, I might as well get a 23" 1080p one. I usually sit close to monitors, and I prefer at least 100+ DPI.
 
Q-BZ said:
I wonder what it costs.
Click to expand...
It will be very expensive (probably in the 5 grand ballpark) anyway, so if it had a 2560x resolution it would be just perfect in my books.

I have access to its little brother 3M M2256PW (22" 1680x1050 60 Hz) in my lab, btw, if anyone has any questions. Just for reference, it was close to 2 grand I think.
 
shurcooL said:
Fair enough.

It's just that I am coming from a 30" 2560x1600 60 Hz monitor, and when I first saw the words 32" and 120 Hz I got excited, just to be let down by 1080p resolution. I just can't make that kind of downgrade. I mean, if I were to get a 120 Hz monitor, I might as well get a 23" 1080p one. I usually sit close to monitors, and I prefer at least 100+ DPI.
Click to expand...
Def understandable, and i figured that's where you were coming from.

Like i edited into my original post, lets hope this "trend" continues and that future products get better and go mainstream.

The problem is that the future never gets here fast enough with tech :p
 
shurcooL said:
Fair enough.

It's just that I am coming from a 30" 2560x1600 60 Hz monitor, and when I first saw the words 32" and 120 Hz I got excited, just to be let down by 1080p resolution. I just can't make that kind of downgrade. I mean, if I were to get a 120 Hz monitor, I might as well get a 23" 1080p one. I usually sit close to monitors, and I prefer at least 100+ DPI.
Click to expand...

ah, but wouldn't that have bandwidth issues, even with Displayport :eek:?
 
jeremyshaw said:
ah, but wouldn't that have bandwidth issues, even with Displayport :eek:?
Click to expand...
In theory, no.

DisplayPort 1.2 supports up to 17.28 Gbit/s effective video bandwidth, "enough for supporting 4 simultaneous 1080p60 displays (CEA-861 timings) or 2,560 × 1,600 × 30 bit @120 Hz (CVT-R timings)."

Even HDMI 1.4 will support 2560x1600x24 bit @ 120Hz.

But in practice, it seems that it might be one of the reasons.
 
EDIT: made smaller text size, since it's not important to this thread.

Eh, HDMI 1.4 in practice isn't implemented with high TDMS clocks to support anything over 1920x1200 :(

I mostly know due to the Sony category of the NBR forums. We had a helluva time getting around Sony's braindead decision to only use a HDMI port (from an AMD GPU) for a 2000-5000USD laptop :rolleyes: Eventually, a member figured out all we had to do was set the refresh rate down to 35Hz to get it to work...

AMD, despite supporting HDMI 1.4 (actually, the HD5770 also supports "AMD HDMI 1.4"), only supports a certain featureset in it, and can claim the entire spec name (it's not just the clocks that are missing, apparently). If it wasn't for that little slipup, I wouldn't have doubts over Displayport implementations. Also, Dell, despite supporting HDMI 1.3 inputs on their newer Ultrasharps, only supports 1920x1200@60Hz :( (and has the most bullshit reason ever for not saying why - Dell-ChrisM is no useless support tech, either, he's nominally active on NBR forums).


egh, I'm sorry, I hope this doesn't get off as attacking you or slighting you or anything, I'm just a little frustrated, since I used to believe HDMI 1.3+ would mean 2560x1600@60Hz via HDMI, but no... Sony + AMD + Dell braindead = a bad combination. nVidia doesn't matter in the laptop world for this dept, since Optimus, either :mad:
 
Thanks for the informative post on the practical side of the situation, jeremyshaw. :)

I, too, have a $2000 Sony Vaio Z12 that was released in mid-2010, and a 30" 2560x1600 monitor made in 2008. Yet the Z12 only has an HDMI port capable of providing 1920x1200 tops (edit: at 60 Hz, I mean... like you said, higher resolutions are possible if you lower your refresh rate).

On the other hand, I have a late 2008 MacBook and I can connect it to my 30" and get the full 2560x1600 via a simple DisplayPort to Mini DisplayPort cable I bought for $3 on Monoprice.
 
Pixel densities

4.3"....................960 x 540.........256.15 ppi.....0.0992 mm <- phone
..
(QuadHD)
26.5"................3840 x 2160.......166.26 ppi ....0.1528 mm <-- 166ppi quoted resolves to 26.5"
27"...................3840 x 2160.......163.18 ppi.....0.1557 mm <-- may not be viewable size if ppi quote is accurate

10.1"................1280 x 800.........146.55 ppi....0.1783 mm <- tablet
17"...................1920 x 1080.......129.58 ppi....0.1960 mm <-- laptop
22.5" (24").......2304 x 1440.......118.13 ppi....0.2150 mm <- FW900 widescreen CRT max rez 22.5" viewable (80hz) ..
27"...................2560 x 1440.......108.8 ppi....0.2335 mm
30"...................2560 x 1600.......100.6 ppi....0.2524 mm
23"...................1920 x 1080.........95.78 ppi....0.2652 mm <-- 60hz/120hz
24"...................1920 x 1200.........94.3 ppi....0.2692 mm
24"...................1920 x 1080.........91.8 ppi....0.2767 mm
27.5"(28")........1920 x 1200.........82.33 ppi....0.3085 mm
27"...................1920 x 1080.........81.59 ppi....0.3113 mm <-- 60hz / 120hz panels

32".....................1920x1080.........68.84 ppi....0.369mm
.
.
 
That's strange. On its webpage, it's described as a 120 Hz display.

Premium Display Technology:
Full HD resolution with fine pixel pitch maintains sharp image quality while performing up-close interactions
120Hz refresh rate keeps content crisp and clear while users interact
Ultra-wide viewing angle presents a brilliant image at any angle
LED backlights present a long lasting, bright, uniform image regardless of integrated orientation
Click to expand...

Perhaps they're just using the terms incorrectly, for example the internal refresh rate, or some sort of pixel response time measure in Hertz.

Yeah, the manual seems to list it as a 60 Hz only monitor. I would believe the manual over a marketing gloss page.

Oh well, no big loss I suppose. ;/ It is a shame because now there's even less innovation and pushing the envelope in display technologies. Back when we had CRTs, they were improving significantly year over year. Now it's all 1080p this and 60 hz that for mainstream, and even the high end market is not going further than it was 5 years ago with 2560x1600@60. >.<
 
What matters is whether it's able to accept 120 hz input and display 120 distinct images per second. Judging by that manual, it appears not to be so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top