LaCie's new LCDs put NTSC to shame

LaCie plays with a lot of different products, like molten external HDDs and goofy USB hubs, but is totally serious when it comes to displays. Its latest offering is a trio of professional pixel-pushers, the 720, 724, and 730, growing from 20- to 30-inches as you go. The $2,500 720 is 4:3, delivering a pathetic resolution of 1600 x 1200, while the other two stretch to 16:10, 1920 x 1200 on the $3,300 724 and 2560 x 1600 in the top-of-the-line $6,500 730. The top two models feature a 1000:1 contrast ratio, 6ms response time, 14-bit gamma correction, and accurate reproduction of 125 percent the NTSC gamut (guaranteed via included blue eye pro hardware calibration). That's a huge leap over the paltry 10-bit correction and 92 percent NTSC supported by the old 324 -- for a mere three times the cost.

[nxp3 @ Sep 10th 2008 10:18AM]

what's a UBS hub?

[Canoo @ Sep 10th 2008 10:27AM]

well thing about it for the 730 thats just over a tenth of a penny per pixel! thats nothing!

[canoo @ Sep 10th 2008 10:28AM]

*think

[kinezu @ Sep 10th 2008 10:30AM]

1000:1 contrast? Are you sure?

[A-Deca @ Sep 10th 2008 10:39AM]

1000:1 sounds correct, and it is actually perfectly fine.

Contrast is a hyped up parameter that actually has relatively little impact on user experience: under normal circumstances, the human eye can only discern contrast to about 800:1 or so, thus anything more is undetectable anyway.

Here is a great article on what contract actually implies: http://www.practical-home-theater-guide.com/contrast-ratio.html

[Paul @ Sep 10th 2008 11:49AM]

Please, I dont normally comment on here because its full of clowns but I have to interject here.

contrast is one of the most important image qualties, more so than resoloution.

Saying 1000:1 is enough is a joke, I cant watch films on my LCD any more because its so hard to see what is going on in dark scenes.

Please try to watch The Assignation of Jessy James on an LCD, its a joke. I now use my CRT to watch movies and will continue to do so until OLED or whatever sorts the contrast out. I am not impressed enough by the new Kuros to pay for one.

You must work for Philips?

[Brashn @ Sep 10th 2008 2:01PM]

Paul you are an idiot,

These displays are for graphic users and for us that means contrast is the last thing on our minds!!! You want to watch the ASSASSINATION of Jessy James then buy and LCD TV.

[Wwhat @ Sep 10th 2008 6:39PM]

I agree with paul, the proof is in the pudding, they made strides in contrast ratios and now suddenly the last few weeks there's tons of stuff with old contrast ratios from before they started using dynamic contrast and LED backlighting, both of which these offerings don't seem to have then, it's like travelling back in time (including the prices).
Next week we'll see huge heavy CRT's with trinitron being released I guess, then it's over to black & white and 12" and rounded tubes.

[A-Deca @ Sep 10th 2008 10:31AM]

Since when "4:3 1600 x 1200" is "pathetic"? It's UXGA resolution and is the standard for 20" monitors.

Besides, higher resolutions on such a small monitor will only make text and interfaces smaller and harder to see, which for a "pro" user are not necessarily "pro"s.

[Tom Robertson @ Sep 10th 2008 10:32AM]

For the price, it IS pathetic, never mind it being standard for that native screen size.

[Serial 8-Ball Mouse @ Sep 10th 2008 10:56AM]

Ah yes. I love going blind as I read websites.

[web2.oh @ Sep 10th 2008 11:07AM]

It's a joke, you nimrod. There's a 30", 24", and finally the 20" with it's "pathetic" resolution. Humor, you see? They are calling it pathetic as the other two monitors have much greater resolutions, even though 1600x1200 is really quite high! Haha, humor, funny stuff! Lots of that snarky stuff can be found here at Engadget. Lots more can be found by going outside more often.

[canoo @ Sep 10th 2008 10:32AM]

im just gunna go out there and comment on the comment system being one of the worst iv ever experienced here at engadget

[Tom Robertson @ Sep 10th 2008 10:33AM]

Whats up with the commenting system? It works fine.

[Serial 8-Ball Mouse @ Sep 10th 2008 10:46AM]

You must be new here. Wait...

Tom Robertson
Member Since Jun 23rd, 2008

Yeah, that explains it. Although it's been over two months now, so you must have a superhuman resistance to "fail."

[Tom Robertson @ Sep 10th 2008 2:11PM]

Whats up with the commenting system? It works fine.

[ryan.sahb @ Sep 11th 2008 2:54AM]

How ironic :P

[Jason @ Sep 10th 2008 10:32AM]

Can someone explain how you can represent more than 100% of the NTSC gamut, let alone 100% of anything? Did I miss something when my teacher said "you can't put in more than 100%" or have I just been underachieving my entire life?

[Pete @ Sep 10th 2008 10:48AM]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamut

The NTSC gamut doesn't cover the total spectrum of what is perceivable or reproducible, so representing over 100% of the gamut is totally possible. Think of it like saying I have more than 100% of your 4 apples.

[adholmes @ Sep 10th 2008 10:52AM]

It's possible to be over 100% of the NTSC gamut because the NTSC isn't 100% of all the colors in the visible spectrum.

[Phil Perman @ Sep 10th 2008 10:34AM]

1600 x 1200 pathetic? You do realise thats actually a better pixel density than the 24" screen and only slightly worse than the 30" one right? I'd hardly call that pathetic, more like bang on what you'd expect for a pc monitor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot_pitch#Common_dot_pitches_in_monitors

[Serial 8-Ball Mouse @ Sep 10th 2008 10:43AM]

Who wants to hear my "why more than 100% of the gamut is bullshit" tirade again?

...anybody? Hello?

[A-Deca @ Sep 10th 2008 10:49AM]

I believe you, most of the specs on most consumer electronics are bullshit construed to attract the ignorant buyer.

[Major4Play @ Sep 10th 2008 10:57AM]

Sadly the unscientific masses don't realise that 100% is the top limit in a scale of 0 - 100 [% percentile by definition]

[Taylor @ Sep 10th 2008 11:00AM]

Give it to me! Is your argument/tirade that they can't actually show that, or are you saying it doesn't matter?

For graphics work, this is extremely important. The wider the color spectrum the better. This has long been the downfall of LCD screens, the very reason you can still see CRT monitors on some graphic designer's desks.

[Serial 8-Ball Mouse @ Sep 10th 2008 11:02AM]

@Major4Play

Exactly.

[nbonini @ Sep 10th 2008 12:56PM]

Bring it on! Let's hear this argument...

Then we can have a math class and a class on colorimetry to set the record straight.

NB

[Serial 8-Ball Mouse @ Sep 10th 2008 1:59PM]

@nbonini

Alright... I say that having more than 100% of a color gamut is total bullshit. This is because you can't display more than 100% of the colors in a gamut.

For instance, let's say there's a Cheese Gamut. There are 10 colors in the Cheese Gamut. If you display those 10 colors and another 11th color, you are not displaying 110% of the colors in the Cheese Gamut, you are displaying 100% of the colors in it, and then some other color from elsewhere. You can't display 110% of something! It's impossible and stupid and the terminology needs a serious overhaul.

[DrWu @ Sep 10th 2008 3:55PM]

See what you're failing to understand is that the NTSC Gamut doesn't include all of the colors in the visible spectrum. If the monitor can display more than colors than the NTSC Gamut, then that can easily be expressed using a Percentage, and its very appropriate to express that as a number greater than 100% of the NTSC Gamut.

I didn't feel like taking the time to find a chart that showed the NTSC gamut but here is a chart that compares several others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Colorspace.png

Looking at this chart wouldn't it be fair to say that the "Pro Photo" Gamut has more than 100% of the colors of the sRGB Gamut?

[Major4Play @ Sep 10th 2008 10:53AM]

Nice title but NTSC colour gamut is not really factually correct. NTSC uses YUV colour which is also used in PAL (UK,AUS,Europe TV standard)
YUV is also used in MPEG and JPEG.
NTSC [National TV Standards Committee] As the name suggests is a TV standard so doesn't really apply to monitors.

[Taylor @ Sep 10th 2008 11:03AM]

NTSC gamut is still a standard that can be applied outside of TVs. It's just a measurement of the color spectrum. You could apply it to a printed photo if you wanted to.

[John @ Sep 10th 2008 11:09AM]

These are rebadged Samsung XL-series monitors, complete with LaCie's markup.

[Taylor @ Sep 10th 2008 11:17AM]

link?

[Christophe Cherel @ Sep 10th 2008 12:16PM]

Wide gamut is only marketing!
In Blu-ray, only SMPTE-C gamut at 90% is used (and 10% of EBU gamut).
More info here (in french) :
http://hdsoir.blogspot.com/2008/09/le-gamut.html

[nbonini @ Sep 10th 2008 12:53PM]

Why NTSC?!? Why not the full 709 color gamut for HD? For the price, you could get a pro monitor without HDSDI. If you are really concerned about color and video, you should be able to calibrate to 709 color space.

The panel would only be 8 or 10 bit anyway. I am not aware of anyone making panels more than 10-bit in the consumer space.

If you read this far, you might be wonder what's the point? I ask myself the same question...

NB

[Wwhat @ Sep 10th 2008 8:48PM]

Sony just released notebooks with RGB LED backlight that do full-HD and 100% adobe colorspace suitable for photographers in 16:9, that's more like it, 'cept that I hate sony, but oh well, point is that others can follow and stop walking backwards.
Model Vaio VGN-AW11XU btw, about $4K though, but meh, get your boss to pay it.

[wonkydonky @ Sep 10th 2008 9:02PM]

Why the high price w/ no LED backlight?

Go with an NEC, SamsungXL or Eizo instead.

[Aaron @ Sep 11th 2008 4:17AM]

Um... I have an LG 19" display that I payed $250 for and it does just fine, looks beautiful. Why on earth would anyone pay over $1,000 for a non 3d monitor?

[Wwhat @ Sep 11th 2008 5:49AM]

Perhaps they work better with your monster-cables?

[Unknown @ Sep 13th 2008 6:06AM]

how is this 30" display different from Samsung Syncmaster 305T which is available at about 1000€ for at least a year now?