Official Acer [XB270HU] 27" 1440p 144Hz G-Sync IPS ULMB Monitor Thread

Richard Jones said:
I'd get the Asus too. But I have no idea if FreeSync is as 'good' as G-Sync...
I read it doesn't feature strobing, but otherwise it's a mystery to me.
Click to expand...

As far as we can tell before reviews there are three negatives for going with Asus
1. No strobing
2. Frequency range of 40-120 Hz vs 30-144
3. Being locked into AMD gpus for next few years - which means DX11 drivers with much higher cpu overhead - normally this is not visible for overclocked i5/i7 owners with 60Hz displays but I'd rather avoid it for 144Hz screen
 
Michaelius said:
As far as we can tell before reviews there are three negatives for going with Asus
1. No strobing
2. Frequency range of 40-120 Hz vs 30-144
3. Being locked into AMD gpus for next few years - which means DX11 drivers with much higher cpu overhead - normally this is not visible for overclocked i5/i7 owners with 60Hz displays but I'd rather avoid it for 144Hz screen
Click to expand...

Why will being locked into amd GPU mean DX11 drivers? Are the new 390x etc. not going to be DX12? 290x etc. is DX11 but what about the new AMD cards coming out soon...
 
This is a little off topic, but I was wondering if anyone can help me out.

I've been looking to get a new 1440p monitor for a few months now, and I was initially waiting for this monitor to be released. However, it is a little beyond my price range even though it has everything I'm looking for. If I was looking to spend less than $500 for a 1440p monitor that will be used for gaming, movies, and browsing, would my best option be the ASUS PB278Q? Or are there similar monitors to the Acer coming out but with a lower price tag? I appreciate the help.
 
Michaelius said:
As far as we can tell before reviews there are three negatives for going with Asus
1. No strobing
2. Frequency range of 40-120 Hz vs 30-144
3. Being locked into AMD gpus for next few years - which means DX11 drivers with much higher cpu overhead - normally this is not visible for overclocked i5/i7 owners with 60Hz displays but I'd rather avoid it for 144Hz screen
Click to expand...

I am going with asus just for the multiple inputs , hook up PS3/4 and Xbox

Big positive for asus
 
elvn said:
I don't think this monitor will make the swift obsolete if the 1ms swift's slim overshoot edge width is traded off for a smearing blur width wider than any of the swift's overshoot incidences,. The other potential tradeoff is that it could potentially be much worse blur of the moving viewport (or ufo object in the simple examples) due to it's response time.. 144hz 1ms cuts the smear blur of lcds down by 60%. Personally it would not be worth trading off a 'soften' blur or fuzz blur amount of a 144hz 1ms if the detail on the ips is down to a smear blur loss of image clarity. That is the major reservation I have about it.

How much blur reduction compared to a 60hz 1ms TN? This is measurable as a % and capable of being presented visually in pursuit camera shots so why do we have to rely on subjective statements?

- but was the blur width wider than the swift's overshoot? How much wider? Was the detail lost by that blur more than the swift? If so, how much more blurry was it? Again, this is measurable as a % and capable of being presented visually in pursuit camera shots so why do we have to rely on subjective statements?
Click to expand...


thank you for your precise questioning. yes, that's my reservation about "blur-free" IPS displays too. it might have better colors than the TN based swift, but what's that good for if the picture smears at every turn. i have a 120 hz IPS here, its static picture is a beauty, but i don't play shooters on it as i'm getting nausea from its motion blur. so depending on the exact amount of trailing, the swift could still be the better option for players who want a sharp image in the first place. that should be tested thoroughly.

btw, how are colors on your swift? good or just acceptable?
 
Here are a few posts I made about the swift's color:

http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1041266518&postcount=3629
excerpt from that reply
Adobe RGB (1998) color space encompasses roughly 50% of the visible colors specified by the Lab color space."
So according to that, my displays are theoretically capable of 41.6% and 35.65% of the visible color spectrum defined by Lab color space - a 5.95% difference in the millions of colors "box of crayons" they have to work with, a difference spread across the already much sliced/defined tones of each color "band". If anything, a very subtle difference and to perfect eyesight and conditions, and only on media that actually fills out those color variances noticeably.

Even with a 100% or 110% adobe 1998 monitor you'd still be at 50% or 55% of the visible spectrum defined by Lab color space, a gain of 14.35% or 19.35% in further dividing already very variegated/abundantly hued color bands.. And that is using adobe 1998 as a reference which has a larger gamut than any sRGB content you might be viewing.


I think the claims of this monitor not having pleasing color saturation are false. I'll say especially for games, but as I said I've also compared a lot of high quality 2560x1440 photos and digital art (a collection I've been adding to since testing out the swift) and am very pleased.
Click to expand...


Some other quotes by me from threads:
The ag texture takes some getting used to on the swift and I'd prefer glossy, but the ag is more obnoxious in desktop/app and still image usage than in gaming. I use a glossy ips for desktop/apps anyway.
<snip>
As for image quality, again, the highest % of color swatch variation is going to be visible on photo work not most if not all games. IPS color uniformity of brightness across the whole panel is way better though. I get a TN shift/shadow 'bubble' edge, usually at the top in my configuration/placement more like a little ledge casting a slight gradient shade onto the top edge. Of course if I bob my head around it is going to shift worse but I don't do that gaming. The color saturation on the swift is lush for what colors it has (and what colors games actually utilize).

That said I actually want the ips gaming panels to be great, and if the 34" 21:9 144hz g-sync ones don't smear I would be all over one.
Click to expand...
 
i believe that usually people who say an lcd looks undersaturated say so (correctly) not because of the gamut size but because of a low default gamma
 
there were a bunch of TNs and lightboost hack tn's that were supposedly pale so I was concerned that the swift would be even though it was to use a higher end panel. I was coming from a samsung a750d 27" 120hz TN which was another notably lush line for TNs and I didn't want to downgrade to a pale monitor. Happily the swift is capable of being very saturated and lush for games.
 
Can you stop saying how good the rog swift is please... People are looking at this thread to read about IPS screens with high refresh rate, not to read you saying the rog swift you bought is better.
 
Last edited:
I only responded to the question after someone quoted me (and thanked me for posting). This is a healthy dialogue questioning and comparing what we know with what we don't know about these high end gaming monitors, between people interested in both technologies and who could be potential buyers.

Torr Samaho said:
thank you for your precise questioning. yes, that's my reservation about "blur-free" IPS displays too. it might have better colors than the TN based swift, but what's that good for if the picture smears at every turn. i have a 120 hz IPS here, its static picture is a beauty, but i don't play shooters on it as i'm getting nausea from its motion blur. so depending on the exact amount of trailing, the swift could still be the better option for players who want a sharp image in the first place. that should be tested thoroughly.

btw, how are colors on your swift? good or just acceptable?
Click to expand...
 
elvn said:
I only responded to the question after someone quoted me (and thanked me for posting). This is a healthy dialogue questioning and comparing what we know with what we don't know about these high end gaming monitors, between people interested in both technologies and who could be potential buyers.
Click to expand...

Just all I remember reading recently in this thread is about the rog swift... If I was interested in the rog swift or any tn screen I would read those threads.
 
Nicholars said:
Just all I remember reading recently in this thread is about the rog swift... If I was interested in the rog swift or any tn screen I would read those threads.
Click to expand...

Well I have been reading about it a lot in this thread where people have several times, with no relation to my posts, have said things like "this makes the swift obsolete" and "this is reason I returned the swift 2 days ago" , "the swift is a rip off". People have also asked me questions about my concerns about this ips or about the swift after I replied to such statements ,and thanked me for my posts.

I'm interested in the answers to the questions I have about this ips tech but I will have to wait until someone hopefully does the required testing and presents it rather than regurgitating subjective opinions about blur from reviews.
 
elvn said:
Well I have been reading about it a lot in this thread where people have several times, with no relation to my posts, have said things like "this makes the swift obsolete" and "this is reason I returned the swift 2 days ago" , "the swift is a rip off".
Click to expand...

All of this is true though; the Swift has been a joke since day 1 since it uses the grainiest matte coating used by a 1440p monitor since 2011, uses a perceived black depth ruining inner black bezel, can have pathetically low preset gamma (1.7-1.9 range), has functionality issues as well as regular quality control issues. Maybe joke is the wrong word, the Swift is more like Dells which usually have "exclusive" quality control and/or function related issues.

The Swift's only advantage is the slightly lesser degree of glow and higher ULMB refresh rate, which are both features which require one to sacrifice EVERY other aspect of performance to obtain. The G-Sync ms response time differences are negated by the overshoot and sharpness reducing matte coating. My matte coating anecdote is is based logic and on using a semi-glossy & glossy Qnix/X-Star which are both PWM free and have identical pixel response times; tear free camera pans are obviously clearer on the glossy monitor.
 
Last edited:
elvn said:
Well I have been reading about it a lot in this thread where people have several times, with no relation to my posts, have said things like "this makes the swift obsolete" and "this is reason I returned the swift 2 days ago" , "the swift is a rip off". People have also asked me questions about my concerns about this ips or about the swift after I replied to such statements ,and thanked me for my posts.

I'm interested in the answers to the questions I have about this ips tech but I will have to wait until someone hopefully does the required testing and presents it rather than regurgitating subjective opinions about blur from reviews.
Click to expand...

I can tell you... the TN will have bad viewing angles and worse colors with less blur but some overshoot.... The AHVA will have significantly better colors, no viewing angle psychedelic colors, some white glow on black and will have slightly more blur with no overshoot. Done. Depends if all you care about is motion blur... or if you want decent image quality with slightly more blur. Personally I simply won't buy a TN screen so there is no option other than IPS or VA.
 
NCX said:
All of this is true though; the Swift has been a joke since day 1 since it uses the grainiest matte coating used by a 1440p monitor since 2011, uses a perceived black depth ruining inner black bezel, can have pathetically low preset gamma (1.7-1.9 range), has functionality issues as well as regular quality control issues.

The Swift's only advantage is the slightly lesser degree of glow and higher ULMB refresh rate, which are both features which require one to sacrifice EVERY other aspect of performance to obtain. The ms differences are negated by the overshoot and sharpness reducing matte coating.
Click to expand...

This... if ALL you care about is motion blur then the rog swift is great... if you good want image quality then it is not a good option, it is also disgustingly overpriced.
 
yeah I'd like to know how much less blur vs 60hz 1ms baseline though, because that is unplayable to me. I don't consider smearing blur to be good image quality on a gaming monitor. Hopefully the reduction is considerable because I'd love a 21:9 3440x1440 144hz g-sync gaming monitor next yr.

Other than the bezel thing ncx champions (easily mod-able with painters tape, etc if it really bothers you), and the AG coating ( I do prefer glossy and have a glossy ips next to it for desktop/apps) - I've had none of those other swift issues personally. It also has a 3 yr waranty and around a 3day rma back to asus and a return within a week after that anyway if anyone does have issues.
 
Last edited:
elvn said:
yeah I'd like to know how much less blur vs 60hz 1ms baseline though, because that is unplayable to me. I don't consider smearing blur to be good image quality on a gaming monitor. Hopefully the reduction is considerable because I'd love a 21:9 3440x1440 144hz g-sync gaming monitor next yr.

Other than the bezel thing ncx champions (easily mod-able with painters tape, etc if it really bothers you), and the AG coating ( I do prefer glossy and have a glossy ips next to it for desktop/apps) - I've had none of those other swift issues personally. It also has a 3 yr waranty and around a 3day rma back to asus and a return within a week after that anyway if anyone does have issues.
Click to expand...

I would expect a free blowjob as well at the price it costs.
 
I'm not saying it's not overpriced but the the current samsung curved 60hz 21:9 3440x1440 VA is $1300+, so I'm not expecting the 144hz g-sync model they are supposed to make (not sure if it will be ips or VA) will be any cheaper. The similar acer 21:9 will probably be quite expensive too. High end early adoption gaming monitors aren't cheap. Even the first 27" 120hz 1080p TN monitors in 2011 were $570 - $640 in today's dollars outside of a few brief flash sales.
 
elvn said:
I'm not saying it's not overpriced but the the current samsung curved 60hz 21:9 3440x1440 VA is $1300+, so I'm not expecting the 144hz g-sync model they are supposed to make (not sure if it will be ips or VA) will be any cheaper. The similar acer 21:9 will probably be quite expensive too. High end early adoption gaming monitors aren't cheap. Even the first 27" 120hz 1080p TN monitors in 2011 were $570 - $640 in today's dollars outside of a few brief flash sales.
Click to expand...

Yes all of the "premium" monitors are a bit steep.. Maybe the Asus AHVA 120hz screen will be better but then asus are not exactly known for being a budget brand.
 
NCX said:
All of this is true though; the Swift has been a joke since day 1 since it uses the grainiest matte coating used by a 1440p monitor since 2011, uses a perceived black depth ruining inner black bezel, can have pathetically low preset gamma (1.7-1.9 range), has functionality issues as well as regular quality control issues. Maybe joke is the wrong word, the Swift is more like Dells which usually have "exclusive" quality control and/or function related issues.

The Swift's only advantage is the slightly lesser degree of glow and higher ULMB refresh rate, which are both features which require one to sacrifice EVERY other aspect of performance to obtain. The G-Sync ms response time differences are negated by the overshoot and sharpness reducing matte coating. My matte coating anecdote is is based logic and on using a semi-glossy & glossy Qnix/X-Star which are both PWM free and have identical pixel response times; tear free camera pans are obviously clearer on the glossy monitor.
Click to expand...

The bezel, really? Sigh, not even going to bother.

Back on topic, I've been experimenting with running the Swift with overdrive turned OFF, which makes it only about 1ms slower than the Predator @ 144hz (based on TFT central measurements), and the blur was noticeable and absolutely horrendous to me. So I'm starting to think that elvn might be onto something. This will be interesting for sure.
 
kalston said:
The bezel, really? Sigh, not even going to bother.

Back on topic, I've been experimenting with running the Swift with overdrive turned OFF, which makes it only about 1ms slower than the Predator @ 144hz (based on TFT central measurements), and the blur was noticeable and absolutely horrendous to me. So I'm starting to think that elvn might be onto something. This will be interesting for sure.
Click to expand...

although the AVERAGE G2G times are close(ish), the actual response time performance can't really be compared there.

The ROG Swift (OD Off, 144Hz) has an average G2G of 6.9ms but the response times are very different across the board. some are as low as 1.1ms, some are as high as 12.2ms. you need a consistent response time across all the transitions and G2G levels to offer the best performance. On the Acer (OD normal, 144Hz) the average is 5.9ms, but they are all within the range of 4.5 - 6.9ms so much more consistent. Turning OD off on the ROG Swift will no doubt increase blurring a lot, even though some are very low still
 
I know what you're saying but the difference is still way more drastic than I would have thought.
 
kalston said:
I know what you're saying but the difference is still way more drastic than I would have thought.
Click to expand...

thats the difference that overdrive makes though. you're going from a panel without overdrive vs a panel with overdrive applied (at optimum level available on the screen).
 
Turning overdrive off on the Swift and then going "this is what the Acer will look like" is silly.

I plan to have both on my desk as soon as the Acer is released to find out what the real deal is and then post appropriate MPRT numbers. Not to mention remove the film on both of them.
 
Vega said:
Turning overdrive off on the Swift and then going "this is what the Acer will look like" is silly.
Click to expand...

That's not what I said.

But whatever, the Acer isn't out yet and there's only one review out there so we'll have to be a bit more patient.
 
Vega said:
Turning overdrive off on the Swift and then going "this is what the Acer will look like" is silly.

I plan to have both on my desk as soon as the Acer is released to find out what the real deal is and then post appropriate MPRT numbers. Not to mention remove the film on both of them.
Click to expand...

Hmm I wish I had enough money to risk taking the AG coating off expensive monitors... They look so much better without that AG shit messing up the image, is there anything you can buy to replace the AG coating? Some sort of film similar to NEC "opticlear" coating? Because isn't it bad for the screen to have no coating on it at all eg. easy to scratch, damage etc.
 
Last edited:
Nicholars said:
I can tell you... the TN will have bad viewing angles and worse colors with less blur but some overshoot.... The AHVA will have significantly better colors, no viewing angle psychedelic colors, some white glow on black and will have slightly more blur with no overshoot. Done. Depends if all you care about is motion blur... or if you want decent image quality with slightly more blur. Personally I simply won't buy a TN screen so there is no option other than IPS or VA.
Click to expand...

There is most likely no real difference in colors between the ASUS and the Acer. Both have 8-bit, sRGB gamut panels, both can have great color accuracy (ASUS nearly out of the box and Acer after calibration) and contrast ratios are reasonably close. Please don't compare 6-bit TN panels of cheap displays to the first 8-bit one in the ASUS, there is a marked difference. There are no significant horizontal color shifts on the ASUS, just vertical (which makes the portrait mode practically useless).

The two displays are very close in many key areas so you can't really go wrong with either. If I didn't have the ASUS already I'd probably jump for the Acer because of my previous experiences with TN panels (almost all of which the ASUS dismissed for me).
 
Vega said:
Turning overdrive off on the Swift and then going "this is what the Acer will look like" is silly.

I plan to have both on my desk as soon as the Acer is released to find out what the real deal is and then post appropriate MPRT numbers. Not to mention remove the film on both of them.
Click to expand...

Vega, when you say you want to test MPRT's on them both, do you mean in relation to their ULMB modes? Reading the article at PCmonitors.info on MPRT it would suggest that the response times of both the ROG Swift and XB270HU are certainly low enough to avoid any additional "extra" being added to the MPRT. And that the MPRT is going to be entirely dependent on the refresh rate as the limiting factor. So that would suggest both models would have an MRPT of 16.67ms at 60Hz, 8.33ms at 120Hz and 6.94ms at 144Hz. which is consistent regardless of the display, as long as response times aren't really slow. in the PC monitors example the only exception is the BenQ GW2760HS with a VA panel where "some of their pixel transitions are slow enough to create noticeable trailing that isn&#8217;t &#8216;hidden&#8217; by the perceived blur from eye movement."

With ULMB enabled you are entering another realm of measurement of MPRT though, which will be influenced by the strobe length and refresh rate. presumably we can already predict the outcome based on the TFTCentral measurements for strobe lengths on each model at ULMB settings between 100 and 10?
 
kasakka said:
There is most likely no real difference in colors between the ASUS and the Acer. Both have 8-bit, sRGB gamut panels, both can have great color accuracy (ASUS nearly out of the box and Acer after calibration) and contrast ratios are reasonably close. Please don't compare 6-bit TN panels of cheap displays to the first 8-bit one in the ASUS, there is a marked difference. There are no significant horizontal color shifts on the ASUS, just vertical (which makes the portrait mode practically useless).

The two displays are very close in many key areas so you can't really go wrong with either. If I didn't have the ASUS already I'd probably jump for the Acer because of my previous experiences with TN panels (almost all of which the ASUS dismissed for me).
Click to expand...

The reality is that a good IPS has much better colors than any TN panel.
 
Last edited:
Nicholars said:
Hmm I wish I had enough money to risk taking the AG coating off expensive monitors... They look so much better without that AG shit messing up the image, is there anything you can buy to replace the AG coating? Some sort of film similar to NEC "opticlear" coating? Because isn't it bad for the screen to have no coating on it at all eg. easy to scratch, damage etc.
Click to expand...

If I were to take that risk I'd pay Vega to do it , if he was taking such jobs on again. He's had a lot more experience doing it and has a good setup/method using a humidity room. I wish there was a full time professional place that would do it with insurance vs failure (doing enough orders with insurance fee tacked on to cover the occasional failures, e.g. $25 insurance fee x 32 orders would cover $800, or $50 fee x 16 orders = $800 monitor cost).

About replacing the AG coating, what about the gorilla glass that a lot of apple displays and tablets use? Might be able to get a cut to specification sheet of it shipped from one of the mfg's salespeople if you contacted them. Otherwise maybe regular glass. Would have to mod a frame for it of course too.

Considering possibility of essentially a total loss, the paid ag removal cost and shipping costs and that a cut piece of gorilla glass or other glass wouldn't be cheap, prob better off just keeping the coating It's really not bad as I feared it would be in games and images with the brightness and contrast popping. For text on bright white backgrounds it is annoying, but I change all of my stuff to have medium to dark grey backgrounds (nosquint addon for firefox, turn out the lights addon for chrome, 3rd party text editor, 3rd party file manager, chat apps, etc.). I use a glossy ips next to my ag coated monitor for most desktop/app use but I find the gray backgrounds easier on the eyes on both monitors and already had the backgrounds of my apps med to dark grey before I even got the swift.

Way back in '08 I had a viewsonic vx2025 1680x1050 20.1" monitor and it's AG was horrible, like thick wet sugar and it really mangled text. On the swift the ag is like a micro-crystal, which has a sheen on very bright, flat planes of color. Otherwise in regular usage on media you don't really see it, and you kind of look through the layer focus wise. I put the same 2560x1440 high detail wallpapers/photograph wallpapers on my ips and swift at the same time and they look good on both. I'd still prefer glossy of course.

As far as color goes, the swift is capable of being highly saturated and other than the TN shift, I doubt most games use more color varigation than the swift provides with the number of colors in it's "box of crayons" vs an ips's. Of course real life photos and such would show some difference if you have perfect viewing conditions and perfect eyesight with a higher color range ips, and ips is way more uniform color brightness vs the TN shift/shadow "bubble edge" effect.
 
Last edited:
Personally I frame it within the "for games" category and I doubt games use all of the colors that a higher color range ips is capable of.
Color range ("bigger box of crayons", more color shades for each color) comes more into play in photography and published high color still art.
The tn shift/shadow affect on color/brightness uniformity is the big difference but it's not as bad as sidelong review images make it to be when you are staring straight at the monitor gaming at a desk. It's more like having a little ledge at the top of your monitor making a slight gradient shadow band at the top. Barely noticeable in desktop unless you bob you head around making the top "gradient band" brighter or compare it side by side to the same image on an ips, and even less noticeable while gaming if at all.

I've used two different monitors at my desk for years for the tradeoffs so when I am talking about a gaming panel I frame it's performance in what it is made for, gaming (which includes color saturation and overall aesthetics too). Sadly that's how monitor tech has been for a long time so dual monitors for me since a very long time ago.
 
Last edited:
putting an extra layer of glass over the panel is both cost prohibitive as well as not looking very good. just look at the differences in handhelds before/after manufacturers started fusing the glass to the panels underneath to predict how the picture would suffer if added something on top of it.
 
I wouldn't want to put glass on it but if you could remove the AG and replace it with something like the "NEC opticlear" coating that would be ideal, but I don't think that is possible and I read on a thread somewhere about someone who took the AG coating off a screen and when he cleaned the bare screen it ruined it. Why don't manufacturers release the more expensive screens with an AG and glossy / semi glossy option... Probably because it is not worth it for them as people will buy the AG anyway if they don't have a choice, why do almost all laptop screens have glossy and desktop are almost all AG, when a laptop is more annoying for reflections than a desktop monitor :S
 
laptops were never glossy unless you paid a significant uncharge for the screen (and not always an option). the glossy screens are probably because consumers expect them due to their tv's all being glossy or it could be something like it's a cheap way to raise the contrast. either way, glossy screens present a whole host of problems.
 
elvn said:
there were a bunch of TNs and lightboost hack tn's that were supposedly pale so I was concerned that the swift would be even though it was to use a higher end panel. I was coming from a samsung a750d 27" 120hz TN which was another notably lush line for TNs and I didn't want to downgrade to a pale monitor. Happily the swift is capable of being very saturated and lush for games.

[...]

I only responded to the question after someone quoted me (and thanked me for posting). This is a healthy dialogue questioning and comparing what we know with what we don't know about these high end gaming monitors, between people interested in both technologies and who could be potential buyers.
Click to expand...






i had that samsung 750d too, and i remember it being full glossy and having quite vivid colors for a TN panel. i sold it only because 120 hz blur reduction (50% over baseline) was not enough for me, not because of the colors. i had it next to the IPS on my desk, and while there was certainly a difference in image quality, mainly in subtle shades which appeared more uniform on the s750d, this difference was not groundbreaking, at least for a gamer.

well, i got my lightboost monitors (first xl2411t, then 2411z with v2.0) which completely solved the blur / nausea issue, but at the cost of bleached colors and poor contrast. so i'm still looking for a monitor that combines sharp movement with good colors and contrast, and i assume that many others haven't found their holy grail of monitors.

i did not mean to derail this thread by asking about the swift's performance: i would prefer getting the acer because IPS has still more color accuracy than any TN, but this is not interesting without motion clarity. so i think it's quite natural to compare the acer to the current champ of gaming monitors to determine its performance. elvn has a point that tftcentral's subjective assessment of blurring is not enough and the blur edge should be measured exactly.
 
mope54 said:
laptops were never glossy unless you paid a significant uncharge for the screen (and not always an option). the glossy screens are probably because consumers expect them due to their tv's all being glossy or it could be something like it's a cheap way to raise the contrast. either way, glossy screens present a whole host of problems.
Click to expand...

They literally present no problems at all, except reflections... Other than reflections the image quality is better in every way compared to AG, well it is if the glossy coating is good, for example the NEC opticlear coating.
 
Last edited:
Nicholars said:
They literally present no problems at all, except reflections... Other than reflections the image quality is better in every way compared to AG, well it is if the glossy coating is good anyway, for example the NEC opticlear coating.
Click to expand...
they pick up dust and fingerprints but the main problem is the glare

I don't know how you can say something has no other issues other than the fatal flaw it presents as if glare is something that can be overlooked
 
mope54 said:
they pick up dust and fingerprints but the main problem is the glare

I don't know how you can say something has no other issues other than the fatal flaw it presents as if glare is something that can be overlooked
Click to expand...

No I said it has no other issues other than reflections... If you have a room with no problems with reflections then good glossy screen (eg. NEC opticlear) always looks much better than AG.. AG is just a blurry coating which makes everything worse except reflections.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top