Huge Pixels ^^ I wonder why they even bother with such products. Anything above 24 Inch needs higher than 1080p/1200p

Huge Pixels ^^ I wonder why they even bother with such products. Anything above 24 Inch needs higher than 1080p/1200p

Probably b/c it's cheaper to make and plenty of users wouldn't care and/or appreciate/want the difference. I know plenty of people who do not know how to adjust all of their applications for size and dislike 1080p. My business uses some applications lacking scaling options and we purposely bought large monitors with a 1080p resolution to make it easier to see.

I personally prefer 1080p and 27" as I find it the ideal size in the 16:9 aspect. 24" 16:9 screens suck after being used to 16:10. I also find 1080p less strain on the eyes as the size of the desktop is ideal. I even found 1920x1200 to be too high. I know WQHD is all the rage around here, but not for me. I think it is the first time since the early 90's I have given up on upgrading my resolution. Also running sli/crossfire for decent frame rates.. no thanks. Not going back to dual cards if I can help it. In the future when screens can change res without quality loss, maintain 144hz at all resolutions and faster single cards it might be something I would look into again. But a higher resolution for my desktop, I will pass as my eye sight cant take any more abuse.

Huge Pixels ^^ I wonder why they even bother with such products. Anything above 24 Inch needs higher than 1080p/1200p

People are playing/watching 720p content on 55" TVs, you know.

People are playing/watching 720p content on 55" TVs, you know.

But they are also watching it from 10+ feet away. Which puts it at the same PPD as a 24" screen - 1080p @ 3'. I mean I still agree with you, 27" - 1080p @ 3' is 51PPD, vs 57PPD for 24" 20/20 Human eye is essentially capped at 60PPD baring aliasing issues depending on content. But anything about ~45 is pretty damn high and you start hitting diminishing returns.

I agree. Also, as I have said several times before, those cheap 1440P's are all about resolution and can lack in the quality department. Even some of the people on here saying they are brilliant are on their second or third to get one they consider acceptable. Unless you're sitting stupidly close to the monitor 1920x1080 at 27 inches is fine, especially for gaming. The flicker-free (it's a LED backlight thing), AMVA high static contrast, good colour, even backlight, low bleed, fast response monitor to me is more beneficial than wanting those extra pixels alone.

And you have extensive experience with those cheap 1440p monitors I suppose? I'm sure you're talking about the Korean monitors, in which case I would like you to know that in front of the one single case you have singled out to support your point, hundreds are happy with their purchase from the first time, including many here on these forums and you can see that for yourself if you actually enter the Qnix QX2710 thread and read. You can also visit the OCN club and see the impressions from people who do know what they're talking about with their monitors. What am I saying? Here are a few measurements from my low static contrast, poor colour, uneven backlight, terrible bleed, slowass Qnix QX2710 (unfortunately my 54th monitor): Default: [spoiler] http://i.imgur.com/3P4dtQQ.png http://i.imgur.com/WKPAkgg.png http://i.imgur.com/WzONnmm.png http://i.imgur.com/vPZTgd8.png [/spoiler] Post-calibration: [spoiler] http://i.imgur.com/8589vKR.png http://i.imgur.com/A5OONzK.png http://i.imgur.com/7hkFrDo.png http://i.imgur.com/z5yeZNX.png [/spoiler] I'll link to uniformity checks and contrast ratio numbers later. Show me the results on the branded monitors, please. I bet you 99% of them are way worse.

1080p is only good for gaming and films. Nothing else. Most serious PC gamers use their rigs for more than just games and 1080p just doesnt cut it. at 24" the sweet spot is 1920x1200, at 27" its 1440p, now if anyone made a 16:10, 27" 1440p monitor then I'm sure people would be queuing up to buy them. My BenQ FP241W has served me well for the last 6 - 7 years can't say Ive seen anything yet thats made me want to ditch it.

It's more because it's a hit and miss. Basically if you are unlucky enough to get a bad one, and don't kid yourself, they are 'not uncommon', you're pretty much stuck with it. Of course, there are plenty of good ones too. Just google it!

They are uncommon, and you can see for yourself if you follow the OCN Qnix / X-Star club very closely. You don't seem to be familiar with the Korean sellers, I presume. One dude had his perfect pixel AH-IPS Korean monitor develop a dead pixel 20 days after he received it, and they exchanged it for him. Scan the threads for cases where the user shipped their monitors back to the seller and the seller paid for the return shipping. There was another person who wanted 3 matching Qnixes, a practically impossible feat with any monitor due to variance between the samples, even within the same model. I kept trying to convince him to get a colorimeter and skip the mess he's making, but he insisted on de-matting his monitors, sending back those that didn't match, etc... and claiming that one sample could be washed out with lesser gamut and another could be fine (hogwash, no measurements support what he's saying). The man had three Titans and was getting a fourth, and his library was chock-full of anime. It's a priority for these sellers to be nice to their customers and return the samples that people aren't content with. I'm sure that with a bit of back and forth, the vast majority of sellers would accept trade-ins if you were not satisfied.

I'm sure many of those people who have those with bad backlight bleed etc wouldn't know any better.

I'm sure they would, and there are photos to prove it. At the very most, people have had to relieve the chassis a bit to reduce / eliminate bleed altogether, and you can also read accounts of people who had other branded monitors and got a Korean with less bleed. This is a unique case where it really isn't "too good to be true". It really is too good.