NEC's 25.5-inch H-IPS monitor for pros

If you liked that 25.5-inch H-IPS panel from Mitsubishi we hit up a few weeks ago then check this professional panel from NEC. While they share most of the specs -- 1920x1200 (WUXGA) resolution, 800:1 contrast ratio, 400cd/m2 brightness, 178-dgree viewing angle, and 2x HDCP-capable DVIs plus one D-Sub15 input -- the MultiSync LCD2690WUXi features an embedded integrated circuit with 12-bit look-up tables (i.e., gamma correction) for even smoother gradients. Hell, the panel also delivers a broad color gamut at 91% NTSC and even pivots 90-degrees to get your bigzz portrait on. Ideal for graphic design, photo re-touching or other professional uses. And believe us, at ¥239,400 (about $2,036) you'll be more than happy for the boss-man to cover the cost. Expected to hit Japan on 12 January of the new year.

[Via Impress]

[John @ Nov 20th 2006 9:59AM]

91% of NTSC? That must be, um, almost the whole brown palette :-)

[craig @ Nov 20th 2006 10:50AM]

If they want it to be "ideal for graphic design, photo re-touching or other professional uses" they need to up the resolution. 89 dpi isn't ideal for anything. 2560x1600 would be far better. 100dpi or less just isn't good enough at typical monitor viewing distances.

[EddN @ Nov 20th 2006 4:13PM]

I think you're wrong, I am a graphics professional and I think this monitor is brilliantly specified. Why do pixels have to be tiny just because you print at a higher resolution, that makes no sense. Also if you go to a higher resolution it causes all kinds of problems with cabling, graphics cards, games, movies and will cost a heck of a lot more too. The only complaint I have is the lack video inputs. I say well done NEC and I hope all the fancy electronics in this monitor pay off.

Oh and by the way, it sounds more intereesting if you count the % of Adobe RGB space it covers (94%) compared to 'Never The Same Colour (NTSC) plus is more relevant for Graphics proffesionals too =)

[craig @ Apr 12th 2007 9:31AM]

"Why do pixels have to be tiny just because you print at a higher resolution, that makes no sense."

Of course it makes no sense, so why did you make it up? It's not that pixels should be tiny but that they should not be huge. At typical monitor viewing distances, they eye can resolve 150dpi so there's no reason for pixels to be as large as this monitor has.

"Also if you go to a higher resolution it causes all kinds of problems with cabling, graphics cards..."

Yeah, it would require dual-link DVi, a single cable standard that already exists and is supported by existing cards.

"...games, movies..."

I thought this was a professional monitor? Why does this cause a problem for movies?

"...and will cost a heck of a lot more too."

Really? The Apple 30" is much larger, offers the resolution this one does, and is cheaper.

"The only complaint I have is the lack video inputs. I say well done NEC and I hope all the fancy electronics in this monitor pay off."

Yes, you've proven your ignorance on the matter so this comes as no surprise.

"Oh and by the way, it sounds more intereesting if you count the % of Adobe RGB space it covers..."

Why is that? A monitor with inadequate resolution is uninteresting regardless of its gamut. People seem to think that wide gamut is valuable when it is not, yet they have no idea how valuable it is to stop looking through a soda straw at their images. Try an IBM T221 and you'll see what a real monitor is like.