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.
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 =)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
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 =)