NEC CRV43: 43-inches of curve on sale July

See that? All 43-inches of this curved NEC monitor with 2880x900 pixel resolution can be yours in July. Ok, it'll cost you $7,999 but it's, well, it's curved! The CRV43, first spotted at CES in January 2008 and again on video in 2009 (where it was expected to cost $6,499), measures in with a 200 nits brightness rating, 10,000:1 contrast, 0.02ms "Rapid Response," covers 99.3% of the Adobe RGB color gamut, and packs at least one USB2.0 jack and DVI-D and HDMI 1.3 connectors. Unfortunately, gaming is not listed amongst its targeted uses so you'll be on your own to find a release supporting the CRV43's 32:10 aspect ratio. Unfortunately, there's some junk in that trunk so deftly hidden by the glamor shot above. See what we mean after the break.

[sweet greggo @ Jun 4th 2009 1:56AM]

+1 for taking Mossberg's ugly face off the top of the page.

[nerdtalker @ Jun 4th 2009 2:13AM]

+2 seconded for removing Mossturd from the first post. Thank goodness, anything is better.

[Frankenstein Black @ Jun 4th 2009 2:50AM]

Nice Walt p0wnage! Zing, Ba bing, you're a gunslinger ;^)...

[Leo @ Jun 4th 2009 3:52PM]

+1 for "junk / trunk" - gotta love Engadget for down with the kids.

[Luis Rivera @ Jun 4th 2009 1:58AM]

i bet the zune hd would look great on their

[Luis Rivera @ Jun 4th 2009 1:59AM]

***there***

[ash @ Jun 4th 2009 2:45AM]

What's going to look great on there is a stretched version of the Windows file transfer. It's going to look like my files are going transcontinental.

[Invisiblemoose @ Jun 4th 2009 2:01AM]

Wait, what? This display seems useless to me for anything but gaming...

A 30" monitor would be superior for any other task (and even certain gaming genres like RTS) at much lower cost...

[Jason @ Jun 4th 2009 2:33AM]

This is basically a multi-monitor setup without the seams, and it's every bit as useful. Unless you disagree with the usefulness of multiple monitors, then you must admit to the usefulness of this big guy. Of course it's going to be absurdly expensive though, but that's because it's designed for people who don't care what it costs.

[old.news @ Jun 4th 2009 3:37AM]

Really? Porn doesn't come to mind at all?

[Matthew C @ Jun 4th 2009 3:43AM]

Actually, I agree. With only a height of 900 pixels, I see a standard 30 incher (2560 x 1600) as a much more reasonable option for work requiring high resolutions, and only about 1/6 the cost, while maintaining almost 90% of the horizontal resolution

As a user of multiple smaller monitors, I can say that the entire reason I enjoy my setup is the ability to separate my applications between two screens. I can maximize each, and lower the brightness (or even shut off) of one display if I care to. You cant do this with this monitor.

It would, however, be an absolutely amazing addition tho ultra-high-end gaming rigs if developers chose to support it.

[Shinigami @ Jun 4th 2009 4:23AM]

I use a 30" monitor, I game and I WANT THAT THING!!!
30 inches are good but for some tasks I really wish there were 3x30" monitors. I lack space for tasks that involve multiple windows.

This thing NEC made looks like 3 CRT monitors together. Too big for gaming. Too expensive for average gamer as well.
Great thing for professionals, now we just need a cheap slim variant from Dell or some other company...

[Boards of Canada @ Jun 4th 2009 7:46AM]

My 30inches Dell have 2560 by 1600. I paid it 800$ (I still cant believe Ive got that deal!!)

This is quite bad idea... make it 4000 by 1200 and I will be impress.

[rDub @ Jun 4th 2009 7:50AM]

I also use a 30" monitor with a 24 incher next to it in portrait mode. You are crazy if you think I would give up this setup for some measly 900 pixels height. Talk about a severe loss of screen real estate. Honestly I cant think of anything other than gaming that would benefit from this screen...

Prove me wrong NEC (but you still aint gettin' my cash)

[RyanTV @ Jun 4th 2009 11:59AM]

I totally agree with you guys... the 900 pixel height is ridiculous in this day and age, epically if you are targeting it at multitaskers.

Most people would buy 2 30" monitors for less than half the cost of this setup.

This display is 2880x900 = 2,592,000 pixels
2 30" monitors running at 2650x1600 = 8,192,000 pixels (for half the cost)

not a tough choice.

[IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII (BarCODE) @ Jun 4th 2009 11:44PM]

32:10, THE CORRECT RATIO SHOULD BE 16:5..........

[Sam @ Jun 5th 2009 10:55AM]

well then why isnt 16:10 done 8:5? because its easily comparable to 16:9.. same with this, its easily comparable with 16:10 (oh look, twice as wide)

[IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII (BarCODE) @ Jun 5th 2009 11:50PM]

I believe the reason lies in marketing and public ignorance about high school mathematics. Joe Public Sees 8:5 as being inferior or Less wide than 16:9.

[Frederik @ Jun 4th 2009 2:02AM]

I'll burn some books to clean up the shelve space!

[Str1ker @ Jun 4th 2009 2:48AM]

You have books?

[Samboini @ Jun 4th 2009 2:53AM]

Here, take this spare kerosene.

[J. Baker @ Jun 4th 2009 3:47AM]

Your canteen is empty. Will you fill it?

[AbbasJin @ Jun 4th 2009 4:16AM]

i'll burn some of my books to help you make some space for that.

[JStro @ Jun 4th 2009 8:12AM]

Maybe Bradbury will loan you his mechanical hound.

[Cameron @ Jun 4th 2009 4:05AM]

I think it should be 1200 pixels high minimum. It would be cheaper to buy two 30" cinema displays which will give you a lot more pixels and can actually display HD video, unlike this one

[NICOLA.GERETTI @ Jun 4th 2009 2:08AM]

Curved seamless image: Yes

[kalieaire @ Jun 4th 2009 2:10AM]

It's not seamless.

[chuuchdizzle @ Jun 4th 2009 6:52AM]

just look at the vid man http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/video-nec-crvd-display-hands-on/

if I were the kind of person that wanted this, i'd wait for flexible oled screens

[kalieaire @ Jun 4th 2009 2:07AM]

I have seen one of these in person, used it for extended periods of time, and have to say - it absolutely sucks. the screen itself is blurry since it's dlp projected through a transluscent plastic sheet (your screen) and then there's an absolutely clear separation between each dlp projector.

it's completely pronounced, and if you're able to calibrate the monitors for a particular app, once you change apps, it'll show up terribly.

it's worst when you're working on something with a white/bright background since you'll have dark vertical lines cutting down the screen.

[kalieaire @ Jun 4th 2009 2:09AM]

Oh - and guess what, you can actually hear a high pitched wine from the DLP mirrors spinning. Ruins gameplay for me - it's even more bothersome doing any sort of work without loud music blaring out of my speakers.

[Gregorian @ Jun 4th 2009 2:29AM]

Oh.
Now I'm rather deflated by it all. A shame.
Of course I was never going to spend 8Gs on display anyway.

[kylehase @ Jun 4th 2009 6:22PM]

I doubt the micro mirrors make any sound. It might be the colorwheels making the noise.

[kylehase @ Jun 4th 2009 6:26PM]

It could also be the cooling fans making noise since DLP light sources get hot.

[the4thheat @ Jul 1st 2009 10:52AM]

I hadn't even realized it was DLP until I read your comment, no wonder it has such great response times with that color gamut. I was trying to figure out who had invented a curving LCD panel with good color and super fast response.
Now I'm saddened, although if they could improve the problems you mentioned it wouldn't be so bad. Of course this thing could really use a little more vertical resolution. Just a little tragic when your $8000 monitor can't show all the vertical pixels of a 1080p image.

[cbilly @ Jun 4th 2009 2:10AM]

Terrible pixel/cost ratio. 2880x900 for $8k vs. 2560x1600 X 5 for ~$7k. And I can still "curve" the five 30"ers around my desk.

[Matthew C @ Jun 4th 2009 3:46AM]

5 30" desktop = ridiculous.

Thats a 20-megapixel desktop.

[TTSGEB @ Jun 4th 2009 4:13AM]

At that point, your really stretching it to say desktop. Really, that's more like . . . garage(top?).
It would make for an awesome setup though to have those monitors. At that point, you could just forgo folders all together and place all your files on the desktop.

[Name: @ Jun 4th 2009 2:10AM]

Rename to: NEC JLO43.

[Kraken @ Jun 4th 2009 4:31AM]

I see what you did there. lmao

[superhobo @ Jun 4th 2009 6:12AM]

I must know, what is that about?

[Epignosis @ Jun 4th 2009 9:32AM]

I'm craving for it so it CRV, others can call it JLO or JLS.

[Giroro @ Jun 4th 2009 2:12AM]

Monitors like this shouldn't be measured diagonally.

[AMiSH PiRATE @ Jun 4th 2009 2:27AM]

ok. how do you propose measuring them? keep in mind that companies won't switch to a height/width two number system.

[Soulsaber @ Jun 4th 2009 2:40AM]

How about a measurement of area?

[Matthew C @ Jun 4th 2009 3:51AM]

Area and ppi.

For example, a 19 inch 3:4 display has a greater area than a 19 inch 16:10 display which has a greater area than a 19 inch 16:9 display, and don't even try to compare the resolutions without a calculator. 2 things really matter: size, and detail. Diagonal measurements portray neither on an easily comparable scale.

[Steve @ Jun 4th 2009 2:13AM]

Hopefully oled will make curved display more common. This is just not it.

[poematik14 @ Jun 4th 2009 2:18AM]

That doesn't count as curved. You can get 5 30" displays and set them side by side in an arc shape and it will be cheaper and more powerful.

Nice try.

[Cosmo @ Jun 4th 2009 2:18AM]

But can this display Crysis and GTA4!?

[va jj @ Jun 4th 2009 2:20AM]

this or a very expensive hooker....


CHOICES...

[rube @ Jun 4th 2009 2:21AM]

Oh HELLLLLL .. . that is what I call a monitor , this would fit perfect on my desk.
what a beautiful piece of electronic. . this is innovation.. now it's starting to feel like 2009.