Monoprice IPS-Glass Panel Pro 27" LCD Monitorby Chris Heinonen on October 22, 2013 2:40 AM EST
Unlike the cheaper Monoprice display, the brightness control for the IPS-Glass Panel Pro actually controls the backlight correctly. Set to the maximum level it produces 348 cd/m^2 of brightness. Monoprice rates it for 440 cd/m^2 but hitting that level requires maxing out the contrast setting which introduces color shifts and white clipping.
Unfortunately the minimum setting for the brightness control does not take the Monoprice as low as we would like to see it. The minimum white level is only 163 cd/m^2, well over the 80 cd/m^2 we will try to calibrate to later. This might be by design as a really low light level would cause the glare of glossy screen to be much worse. If you work in a dark or dim environment you might find this light level to be too high for your regular use. I found myself using the display with the backlight at minimum the whole time as I prefer a level closer to 140-150 cd/m^2 in my moderately lit room.
The black levels on the Monoprice are much better than I expected them to be. IPS is typically not as highly regarded for deep blacks but the Monoprice does a great job. At the maximum setting the black level is 0.3524 cd/m^2 and at the minimum it falls to 0.1647 cd/m^2. For an IPS display these are both quite good numbers.
For the first time I had a display produce the exact same contrast level at maximum and minimum backlight settings. That is more of a fluke than anything, but the actual number is the impressive part. The Monoprice comes very close to the 1000:1 that I look for with a 989:1 ratio. This is effectively the same, and means the Monoprice works very well for dynamic content like games and movies. This might change if you calibrate, but it is capable of really good results.
The one thing I would like to have seen from the Monoprice here is a lower minimum backlight setting. Perhaps they have adjusted the backlight to provide better contrast ratios at the expense of minimum light levels, in which case most people would find this acceptable. Overall these numbers are very good and I’m happy to see them.
Post Your CommentPlease log in or sign up to comment.
View All Comments
peterfares - Tuesday, October 22, 2013 - linkWould you really count $475 for this as a steal? It seems quite expensive for a rebranded cheapo WQHD monitor.The Dell is probably worth the extra money, especially considering the 3 year advanced exchange warranty included vs 1 year not.The Microcenter monitor also has the same inputs for $400.
piroroadkill - Tuesday, October 22, 2013 - linkI'd agree that a far more premium look, more inputs, better stand, etc are worth $75 alone.
Let alone 3 year advanced exchange warranty. The Dell is definitely worth the extra money.
Fergy - Tuesday, October 22, 2013 - linkI would gladly play $50 not to have glossy plastic bezels. And $50 to calibrate it for me. I have had my current Dell monitors since 2006 and I am not going to pay $100 less for a cheap looking monitor. It would just irritate me every day.
DanNeely - Tuesday, October 22, 2013 - linkTo a large extent these monitors are aimed at people who consider $600-700 crazy; but are willing to make compromises to stretch up from a 1080p screen. They're the same people who bought the low end 1920x1200 monitors a half dozen years ago when good ones cost $500 and most people bought $200 1680x1050 screens if they were stepping up from the cheapest common denominator.
LancerVI - Thursday, October 31, 2013 - link.....or they're just gamers who don't need/want that kind of color fidelity, but want the resolution and decent response time. Now that GPU's are getting beefy enought to push beyond 1080p maxed out, it's only natural for gamers to look beyond 1080p monitor solution.
Flunk - Tuesday, October 22, 2013 - linkWith a $75 delta over a $400 base, I would get the Ultrasharp every time. Dell's monitor is not only better out of the box but you've got a much better history of quality with their high-end monitors. I was going to post that I would rather have a 24" Ultrasharp than this 27" cheapie but the price different is much less than I expected.
Maybe if they priced this at $350 it would look like a deal to some. I still wouldn't buy it, LCDs last too long to buy a cheap one.
CaedenV - Thursday, October 24, 2013 - linkThat is what I learned the hard way. 4 years ago I picked up a 1200p display for $300 because it was what I could afford, instead of spending the $5-600 on one that would really be nice. But now I am stuck with a monitor that has a faint but noticeable buzzing sound, backlight bleeding, horrible color, huge pixels (1200p on a 28" monitor), and displays have improved so much that there is no possible way to resell the thing to help me move up. So now I am stuck with this thing for another couple years every day being painfully aware that I made a bad call.
Next time around I will be waiting for a non-tiled 4K 60fps display in the 35-42" range. It will cost a pretty penny, but if I am going to have to look at it 4-10 hours a day for 7-10 years then the price will be more than justifiable. Monitors, power supplies, and hard drives are things that cost a bit more up front for quality, but more than pay themselves off in reliability and longevity.
CecileWamsley - Monday, October 28, 2013 - linkmy Aunty Maria recently got an awesome cream Chevrolet Corvette Z0-Six by working off of a macbook. pop over to these guys... http://smal.ly/8wUo2
blau808 - Tuesday, October 22, 2013 - linkSorry, but that thing is hideous.
imsabbel - Tuesday, October 22, 2013 - linkOkay, this monitor is just as unusual as the other monoprice one. Over 150 Cd/m^2 MINIMUM brightness? I know people like "brighter is better", but 100 Cd/m^2 is the recommended brightness in a well lit workplace. For a reason.
At night, in a dark room, its already too bright. 163 minimum means you are messing up your eyes bigtime if you are a nighttime gamer. In a dark room, 20-30 are perfectly fine.