Eizo 24-inch FlexScan S2433W-H debuts, inspires blank stares
By Joseph L. Flatley 
posted Jul 31st 2009 2:42AM
posted Jul 31st 2009 2:42AM
When not thrilling us with their excessively ugly HDTVs, the kids at Eizo usually have a relatively benign monitor or two to send our way. The FlexScan S2433W-H is a 24.1-inch LCD that sports WUXGA resolution (1920x1200), a 16ms response time, a DVI-D (HDCP) port, DisplayPort, and a coverage rate of 96% of Adobe RGB. Look for this guy in Japan on September 1, with the PR listing the price as a cool ¥94,800 about ($1,000).
[Via Akihabara]
[Via Akihabara]
do NOT want
agreed. Return to sender.
Fine then, I'll have both of yours since you don't recognise quality :P
What quality? My Samsung 24" has better specs and cost 1/3 the price. Move along, nothing to see here.
sortius, honestly I hope you are trolling. The only 'specs' that your samsung has that are better than this monitor is the refresh rate. And that's because your samsung monitor is a cheap TN panel with HORRIBLE color accuracy. Wiki what a TN panel is before you reply, kthx.
From the Eizo website:
"We want to expand the possibilities of imaging through our high-level expertise and innovative technology, focusing only in our field of specialisation LCD monitors."
And:
"Our efforts to meet all of the demanding requirements of professional users in specialised areas have led us to develop exceptional display monitors for Graphics Design, Photography, Digital Film Production, Medical Imaging and Financial Trading companies."
In summary:
Fatal1ty wont approve; Eizo doesn't care.
Eizo said it itself, its not really for gaming, their focus is else where per the above quote someone made. But whoever said it was quality hopeuflly is gravitation twoards its other uses not gaming, with a horrible refresh rate such as that. I don't care what color the monitor has if the refresh was that bad for high def. gaming, I would cry. If your gaming look elsewhere, but for many other purposes im sure this monitor has its niche.
You know, the funny thing about my dell 2209WA e-ips display? Its rated at 6ms
My former display, a samsung 226BW was rated at 2ms.
Ready for the funny? The dell is better for gaming, and it doesn't have "overdrive artifacts"
I did buy it for photography, but fast response for gaming is a welcome surprise.
http://forums.beyondunreal.com/showthread.php?p=2279816
Anything with less than 6 is a TN panel, TN panels are just not as good as other technologies but they are faster and cheaper, it's simple, now if you have a non TN panel and they claim a super low refresh, which can happen, then they spiked the figures and use tricks and it's not comparable to the numbers used normally.
Its also got a 96% McDonalds diet.
Lookadthatazzzzzz
16ms? Ew~
It's no gaming monitor.
It for people who, you know, use their computer for something actually important.
16ms isn't even acceptable for photo editing, let alone video, or anything graphical like that.
It's a glorified office monitor with a jacked up price.
"16ms isn't even acceptable for photo editing"
Oh? I wasn't aware that photo editing required such fast response times.
"16ms isn't even acceptable for photo editing, let alone video, or anything graphical like that."
Pure, Unadulterated Bollocks.
I work for a newspaper and our photographers require high response monitors otherwise your gamma correction, levels, etc take twice as long to calibrate for each photo.
Ball is in your court mate.
That could be 16ms clack to black and not gray to gray like a lot of manufacturers use
Response time does not matter for photo or video editing. It's cute that you have a summer internship with your local newspaper, but honestly, does it even make the slightest bit of sense that response time would in any way effect the editing of a static image? I mean really. Think about it.
16 ms = 16/1000ths of a second. If you think that waiting a few extra thousandths of a second is a problem in photo editing, graphic design, motion design, or video editing, you need you head (and more likely, ego) checked out.
I edit my photos at thirty frames per second.
Ball is on your forehead.
Most gaming monitors spec the grey-to-grey response times, for the lowest possible number to tout. Most serious monitors spec response times for the biggest shifts in dynamics -
From the "Read" link -
"the speed of response 16ms (intermediate color is 6ms)"
If the google translation is to be believed, 6ms is the gtg, 16ms is the black-to-white or vise versa - not bad at all - and it'll actually allow you to see accurate color rendition, if there's any banding, etc, etc. My Benq FP241W has similar response times, and it's plenty fast for Fallout3 and the like, thankyouverymuch.
People don't notice visual lag until 300-500ms.
From the time you press your keystrokes in games to when the action happens is at least around 100ms. A 16ms response time isn't worth having a discussion over.
sortius - "I work for a newspaper and our photographers require high response monitors." Your photographers must be real prima donnas if they think tweaking the gamma is going to make a damn bit of difference when they are printed on a 66 lpi press on newsprint.
I think some of you are confusing input lag with refresh rate =/
eat it up
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3601
@sortius: are you for real? Its like you're talking about how to do a wheelie on a motorcycle, when you've only ever driven a prius.
I used to work on a calibrated 30ms gtg HP pro display, it was simply amazing for design and publishing. Although gaming was nigh impossible with the massive amounts of trailing/ghosting/blur.
I may have missed something here.. but what exactly makes this monitor worth $1000?
Yeah does someone care to explain?
Display quality and colour reproduction.
If you have to ask...
Yeah, it looks like it went "whoosh" over the heads of most of 'ya.
It's that little "96% RGB" tag, if you must know.
And they also do happen to be really nice displays...
If you could see one side-by-side with a run-of-the-mill monitor, it would be obvious. Unfortunately, I don't think that you can usually see these at a place like Best Buy where, face it, price rules.
Color reproduction is much more accurate. Contrast ratio, real contrast ratio, is better from black to white (most crappy monitors claim higher contrast ratio by extending the white side of things, and it means zero in real performance) with more fine gradations at the extremes - think shadow/highlight detail, not silhouetting. Wider color gamut means that it can display more colors properly - if a monitor can't produce a specific color properly, they usually resort to dithering - alternating (quickly) between the colors on either side of the color that you want, giving a poor rendition of that color - it's oversimplified, but think of someone showing you a grey card vs someone flipping a book of alternating black and white pages to simulate that grey shade.
its an IPS or MVA display, but it still expensive considering the awesome Dell 2209WA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SjS6VCVAcA
It must be for professionals who need the most accurate color output possible.
Yep,
For example, our radiology department uses them for scan reads. Eizos are for people who need quality in terms of color, contrast, viewing angles and uniform lighting/lack of backlight bleed.
Yeah, these monitors are about accurate colors and also have uniform lighting across them with good viewing angles. Made for graphics pros, and Eizo is one of the top brands for that. Really a pretty good price for them, as they are usually higher. I've been wanting one of the NEC monitors similar to this, but it comes with a spectrometer to adjust colors on the screen to make sure they are what they are suppose to be.
Which one coems with a spectometer, man? The EIZO or the NEC?
@The "i"
No they don't. If you can afford one then pros use displays from LaCie, NEC or Eizo. Apple's displays were pretty reasonable as well for a lower price before they went nuts and replaced them with a glossy display model.
Nice looking monitor, I like these kinds of designs - minimal, military/stealthy and manly. My Hazro 24" is all brushed aluminum and in black but it's not a wide gamut screen so maybe if I sell it down the line one of these screens will be on the cards.
One of these displays would be nice for my photo work but I honestly can run to $1000. Do the professionals here (i.e. not the muppets who don't understand what this display is for) think that this is so much better than something like the Dell 2408WFP such that it justifies spending the extra $500?
Note: I'm actually pretty annoyed to discover that the Dell is about 1/2 the price in the US as it over here. The price difference between the Dell and the Eizo might actually be less than $500 depending on its price in Euros.
...I honestly cannot run to $1000.
One of these days I am going to remember to properly check what I wrote for typos and general nonsense before clicking the "Add Comment" button.
I think your best bet is to try seen one up close. I've heard some mixed reviews about the Dell 2408WFP, I think that was mostly due to some of the early models being defective - an issue which has since been fixed. When I was looking for a monitor a few months ago it seemed to be the best of the bunch in that price range. I use an older 21" Eizo in work, I think its fantastic - if I could afford one Id definitely buy an Eizo.
I am fairly certain the Dell is based on a PVA type panel, not an IPS panel. This Eizo is almost certainly boasting one of the best currently available panels in the IPS lineage.
@Josh Warner
Understood but is the difference worth $500? I am not a professional photographer so I don't have an huge budget but I am prepared to invest in something if it is going to make a major difference. In this case I would perhaps consider a smaller display in order to reduce the overall price. So far I have not seen either the Dell or a professional Eizo "in the flesh" so I am hoping to hear from someone who has and who can advise if the Dell is "good enough" or whether it really is worth spending the extra money.
I wouldn't know about whether it's worth it, but part of the equation is also: "how much are you / your company making off your graphics work?" If it is a lot, anything goes. Similar logic to the Wall Street bonuses in their heyday.
That said, the new "hot" monitor in town is the H-IPS HP L2475W. The 2408 is nice, but generally reviewers favor the HP.
Yes it does. S-PVA monitors such as the LaCie 324 and the Dell 2408 have bad contrast shifting in the dark areas when you turn it, even a few degrees. It is simply unacceptable for high-end work. For real color accuracy and colors that absolutely don't shift with the angle of vision, there's nothing but IPS.
In this thread: A bunch of people who don't understand the difference between TN and IPS panels.
eizo is a 90% PVA outfit, but your point remains valid.
i have a dell 2408WFP and its a brilliant monitor, looks absolutely fab but
cons:
~its big, bulky, thicker than an imac
~it puts out a lot of heat, im unsure if this is normal for a display this size
~there is a little backlight bleeding in the top two corners, only visible with black screen and dark room.
other than those it looks great, and according to the reviews, with calibration it is very very colour-accurate.
Apple cinema displays are in the same league, but they lack connectors unfortunately. HP make a similar monitor to the 2408WFP but it wasnt so easy to get here in NZ which is why i got the dell.
Funny comments... I just have to print this discussion. Most people seem to know nothing about displays. Well, I guess we can blame manufacturers with their misleading specifications.
In the graphics world, the "pros" are self-appointed extremely impressionable people that buy impulsively based on whoever's bratwurst they are sucking at the time.
Are you quite sure about that? Surely a professional is defined as someone who makes their living from their professional function and therefore they buy whatever will help them to maximise their income within the boundaries of their available budget. I would have thought that self-appointed "professionals" that buy inappropriate products to do their job don't last long at that job.