Agreed; it depends on how bright your area is; mine're generally at 100. >200 is only really needed for outdoor usage (where you generally want at least 500 for use in direct sunlight) or HDR (where current standards are baselining at 1000 for LCD; but for which up to ~10k would be useful for very small/bright sunlight reflections).
250 vs 300 is only relevant in that the latter's backlight has a bit more room to decline before becoming too dim. OTOH at that point you're talking about a decade+ old display; at which point it's just one of many possible failure modes.
1000 HDR does not mean the entire monitor or even the average brightness is 1000. It just means that the brightest section should not exceed 1000 nits.
1000 nits is actually very bright. A 27" monitor at 1000 nits is as bright as 75W bulb. Even 600 nits is extremely bright in a "dim living room".
When grading for HDR with 1000 nits level, you want the image to be generally between 60 - 300 nits. White titles are often recommended to be 200-250 nits.
Obviously, if you are outdoors or the overall environment is very bright (offfice with large windows), 300+ nits may be more suitable. But a typical bedroom or living room or home office, 100-200 nits is often the typical brightness level for computer monitors.
I suppose if you are wearing sunglasses while using your PC then 250 cd/m² wouldn't be enough brightness. Seriously if you really have experience with these brightness levels and this is the case you should see an optometrist because your scotopic vision is horrible to the point you may have some type of eye disease.
That is kind of arbitrary comment. You need to put some context in that number or it means nothing at all. 100, 120, 400, 600, 1000 cd/m are all meaningless without context.
I kind of agree with the general consensus of others that run displays at sub 150 cd/m2 levels. Even in a well lit room, its easier on my eyes to keep the brightness lowered. Short being in direct sunlight, I don't think there's anything wrong with 250 cd/m2.
I hope it's VA. For content consumption, I'll take the better contrast over better colour accuracy (and VA panels aren't that bad in that regard anyway).
Give the fad another couple of years and it'll pass. The good news is that monitors are not generally things we replace often so if you're happy with your current display(s), you can probably wait out the curved screen thing.
It's madness to buy anything over 24" that's NOT curved. Unless you either sit 5 feet away or enjoy the visual distortion coming from looking at things in side perspective.
I use a Sammy 49" curved 4k TV as a monitor. Basically 4 24.5" 1080p monitors. I like it better than the 3 24's I had before. No bezels and when I'm doing content creation its absolutely great. When I want to game, I push back a bit from the desk. I tried this with a flat panel. nope.
It's actually not a gimmick with the enormous ultrawides.. 38" 3840x1600 for example, looks amazing with the curve - you'd naturally angle two monitors in to each other anyway, so it makes great sense. A 27" 16:9 monitor though? Not so much.
What a stupid comparison. You don't sit directly in front of a TV when you watch it.. A curved TV has no purpose and was a terrible idea. Curved monitors, on the other hand, should have been the standard from the start. Why would you want objects that are offset to the sides of the screen to get further away from your vision and be pulled sideways? When you have a curve in the monitor, the pixels you're viewing stay the same distance from your eyes when you rotate your head, just like vision in real life. It's so immersive that you forgot you're playing a game. We don't see a flat square when we use our eyes to view things in reality, so why would you want your view in games and apps to be flat and distorted? Curved monitors are the future and you'll never go back once you try one. It's superior technology, get used to it.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
20 Comments
Back to Article
samerakhras - Tuesday, September 3, 2019 - link
250 cd/m² is too low for today standards. at least 400 is acceptable todaySirMaster - Tuesday, September 3, 2019 - link
Really? I run my monitor at about 150 cd/m2. Anything more and it just hurts my eyes after awhile.rscsr90 - Tuesday, September 3, 2019 - link
I'm the same. I always run my monitors at minimum.Unless you really have shining the sun directly on the monitor you usually don't need much.
DanNeely - Tuesday, September 3, 2019 - link
Agreed; it depends on how bright your area is; mine're generally at 100. >200 is only really needed for outdoor usage (where you generally want at least 500 for use in direct sunlight) or HDR (where current standards are baselining at 1000 for LCD; but for which up to ~10k would be useful for very small/bright sunlight reflections).250 vs 300 is only relevant in that the latter's backlight has a bit more room to decline before becoming too dim. OTOH at that point you're talking about a decade+ old display; at which point it's just one of many possible failure modes.
jabber - Tuesday, September 3, 2019 - link
Yeah my monitors usually sit at 55-60% brightness.crimsonson - Tuesday, September 3, 2019 - link
1000 HDR does not mean the entire monitor or even the average brightness is 1000. It just means that the brightest section should not exceed 1000 nits.1000 nits is actually very bright. A 27" monitor at 1000 nits is as bright as 75W bulb.
Even 600 nits is extremely bright in a "dim living room".
When grading for HDR with 1000 nits level, you want the image to be generally between 60 - 300 nits. White titles are often recommended to be 200-250 nits.
Obviously, if you are outdoors or the overall environment is very bright (offfice with large windows), 300+ nits may be more suitable. But a typical bedroom or living room or home office, 100-200 nits is often the typical brightness level for computer monitors.
Vitor - Tuesday, September 3, 2019 - link
For indoor it works just fine.FreckledTrout - Tuesday, September 3, 2019 - link
I suppose if you are wearing sunglasses while using your PC then 250 cd/m² wouldn't be enough brightness. Seriously if you really have experience with these brightness levels and this is the case you should see an optometrist because your scotopic vision is horrible to the point you may have some type of eye disease.crimsonson - Tuesday, September 3, 2019 - link
That is kind of arbitrary comment. You need to put some context in that number or it means nothing at all. 100, 120, 400, 600, 1000 cd/m are all meaningless without context.PeachNCream - Tuesday, September 3, 2019 - link
I kind of agree with the general consensus of others that run displays at sub 150 cd/m2 levels. Even in a well lit room, its easier on my eyes to keep the brightness lowered. Short being in direct sunlight, I don't think there's anything wrong with 250 cd/m2.yetanotherhuman - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
High brightness is overrated on desktops screens, it just strains the eyescigar3tte - Tuesday, September 3, 2019 - link
Article states VA panel but the chart says IPS. Pretty sure the VA part is the correct one.Tams80 - Tuesday, September 3, 2019 - link
I hope it's VA. For content consumption, I'll take the better contrast over better colour accuracy (and VA panels aren't that bad in that regard anyway).Drumsticks - Tuesday, September 3, 2019 - link
The AMD Freesync Monitor list shows it as 48-144Hz, with LFC support.guidryp - Tuesday, September 3, 2019 - link
Curved gimmick needs to go from monitors, just as it went from TVs.PeachNCream - Tuesday, September 3, 2019 - link
Give the fad another couple of years and it'll pass. The good news is that monitors are not generally things we replace often so if you're happy with your current display(s), you can probably wait out the curved screen thing.ABR - Tuesday, September 3, 2019 - link
It's madness to buy anything over 24" that's NOT curved. Unless you either sit 5 feet away or enjoy the visual distortion coming from looking at things in side perspective.Manch - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
I use a Sammy 49" curved 4k TV as a monitor. Basically 4 24.5" 1080p monitors. I like it better than the 3 24's I had before. No bezels and when I'm doing content creation its absolutely great. When I want to game, I push back a bit from the desk. I tried this with a flat panel. nope.yetanotherhuman - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
It's actually not a gimmick with the enormous ultrawides.. 38" 3840x1600 for example, looks amazing with the curve - you'd naturally angle two monitors in to each other anyway, so it makes great sense. A 27" 16:9 monitor though? Not so much.Tju2323 - Saturday, January 11, 2020 - link
What a stupid comparison. You don't sit directly in front of a TV when you watch it.. A curved TV has no purpose and was a terrible idea. Curved monitors, on the other hand, should have been the standard from the start. Why would you want objects that are offset to the sides of the screen to get further away from your vision and be pulled sideways? When you have a curve in the monitor, the pixels you're viewing stay the same distance from your eyes when you rotate your head, just like vision in real life. It's so immersive that you forgot you're playing a game. We don't see a flat square when we use our eyes to view things in reality, so why would you want your view in games and apps to be flat and distorted? Curved monitors are the future and you'll never go back once you try one. It's superior technology, get used to it.