**HAZRO HZ27WA & HZ27WC ARRIVING SOON INCLUDING NONE-GLASS VERSIONS!**

Rroff said:
Not something I've really looked into but IIRC most consumer GPUs can only do 10bit over display port (which these monitors don't have an input for) and only very recent GPUs can actually do 10bit anyhow - for example nVidias 200 series have hardware support for it in the spec but not enabled by many vendors for instance.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Also with the level of software support at the moment it really isn't worth worrying/thinking about.
 
hazro.jpg
 
Looks can be deceiving but it appears to have the same smooth anti-reflective polarising layer as the glass-covered one. That's great news for people wanting some gloss without the dust. :)
 
PCM2 said:
Looks can be deceiving but it appears to have the same smooth anti-reflective polarising layer as the glass-covered one. That's great news for people wanting some gloss without the dust. :)
Click to expand...

PCM2, you guys seem to be able to help anyone witha monitor query, in your opinion, what are the benefits of this glassless versus glasses, barring the dust issue.
Having used the glass fronted one, will I really notice the difference if I were to get the glassless one?

thanks
 
silverf0x said:
PCM2, you guys seem to be able to help anyone witha monitor query, in your opinion, what are the benefits of this glassless versus glasses, barring the dust issue.
Having used the glass fronted one, will I really notice the difference if I were to get the glassless one?

thanks
Click to expand...

you won't notice the difference since both are glossy

the hazro's glass is actually too far away from the panel - it causes inner reflections which makes certain things look blurry sometimes
 
rickh said:
you won't notice the difference since both are glossy

the hazro's glass is actually too far away from the panel - it causes inner reflections which makes certain things look blurry sometimes
Click to expand...

Indeed. The only difference between the two models seems to be the additional glass pane in front of the screen. This means no specific 'vibrancy' advantage to the glass-fronted version and likely additional glare and possibly some internal reflections as mentioned above. It's more for aesthetics than performance in this case.
 
Last edited:
rickh said:
you won't notice the difference since both are glossy

the hazro's glass is actually too far away from the panel - it causes inner reflections which makes certain things look blurry sometimes
Click to expand...

I havn't seen these inner reflections on mine (WA), and I tried a bit with contrasty images. The glass is very reflective; I suppose that the glassless panel will be better in this respect, even being glossy (I have a MacBook Air with glossy screen, and it is much less reflective). On the other hand, the contrasts are impressive with the glass front. You just need to control light in the background, and shouldn't wear a white shirt ;).

I have ordered a film with a moderate antiglare effect at http://www.photodon.com/mm5/merchan...tegory_Code=MXH-2029&Product_Code=MXH-3460-01

I will report after installing.

Cheers - Klaus
 
klaus said:
I havn't seen these inner reflections on mine (WA), and I tried a bit with contrasty images. The glass is very reflective; I suppose that the glassless panel will be better in this respect, even being glossy (I have a MacBook Air with glossy screen, and it is much less reflective). On the other hand, the contrasts are impressive with the glass front. You just need to control light in the background, and shouldn't wear a white shirt ;).

I have ordered a film with a moderate antiglare effect at http://www.photodon.com/mm5/merchan...tegory_Code=MXH-2029&Product_Code=MXH-3460-01

I will report after installing.

Cheers - Klaus
Click to expand...

is it not a big hassle putting this on? What's the point of the glass front if you are going to cover it up with something similar to what's in use to the non-glass one?
Klaus, Would you prefer to have the glassless one if you had the choice or would you stick to the glass-fronted one?
 
silverf0x said:
is it not a big hassle putting this on? What's the point of the glass front if you are going to cover it up with something similar to what's in use to the non-glass one?
Klaus, Would you prefer to have the glassless one if you had the choice or would you stick to the glass-fronted one?
Click to expand...

Ordering now, I think I would have ordered the glassless one, because of -I suppose- less reflections. On the other hand, contrast, in appropiate conditions behind you, is impressive with the glass version (cannot judge how much less you get without glass). The film may be a solution if you have a glass-version, and you are not comfortable with the reflections. If you don't like its effect, you can take it off, again. Working with office applications, pdfs… I hardly note the reflections, as there are no dark areas to look at (just now, I have not much time for other things). Working with photos is more problematic, as you can´t see as well the details in the shadows. I have to obscure the room quite a bit, or do something to reduce glare.

Anyway, I am sure that I would no be happy with the Dell or Fujitsu 27inch monitors, with their strong antiglare treatment, because I am working a lot with text, and the crystallizing effects on the white background would be annoying. Overall, I am very happy with the hz27wa. I will just try if with this light antiglare film I am even better off, or not.

Cheers - Klaus
 
What I would give for a 120hz version of the WC ... or better yet one at the same res. but 24". It makes so little sense to me, having a monitor 24" or larger that's only 18"-24" from your face ... pixel density is already so, so low at 1080 or 1200 .. :-/ I guess 27" is just about doable at 2560x1440, but any larger and there's a huge amount of space outside your peripheral vision.

The one thing that Apple are doing which I like or hope will start a wider trend is their pixel density initiative. Of course, it's just marketing as far as they're concerned, but if it spreads from phones to PC monitors, that would be awesome. Resolutions are generally so low per size, these days.
 
pmc25 said:
I guess 27" is just about doable at 2560x1440, but any larger and there's a huge amount of space outside your peripheral vision.
Click to expand...

Depends on the way you use it. For working with text documents (word, pdfs), spreadsheets, databases…*its great. You don't look at the whole screen at a time. You can have several documents side by side, read, write in another one, lookup something else without having to look for that window that is somewhere behind… The high resolution on a big screen is ideal for this. Saves a lot of time changing and arranging windows.

For photos it is great, too. You can move further away to see the whole image, and get closer for details (that wouldn't be there with a lower res).

I think it is not very useful to have a big screen with low resolution, for individual use. Just get closer, and you have the same effect. If several persons are looking at a time, it is another thing.

Cheers - Klaus
 
klaus said:
Depends on the way you use it. For working with text documents (word, pdfs), spreadsheets, databases…*its great. You don't look at the whole screen at a time. You can have several documents side by side, read, write in another one, lookup something else without having to look for that window that is somewhere behind… The high resolution on a big screen is ideal for this. Saves a lot of time changing and arranging windows.

For photos it is great, too. You can move further away to see the whole image, and get closer for details (that wouldn't be there with a lower res).

I think it is not very useful to have a big screen with low resolution, for individual use. Just get closer, and you have the same effect. If several persons are looking at a time, it is another thing.

Cheers - Klaus
Click to expand...

No. Unless you have poor eyesight, it's much more productive to have the highest pixel density possible for 'productive' tasks. Less time moving head / eyes / mouse.

For this purpose, 2560x1440 at 24" would be vastly better than at 27-30".
 
pmc25 said:
No. Unless you have poor eyesight, it's much more productive to have the highest pixel density possible for 'productive' tasks. Less time moving head / eyes / mouse.

For this purpose, 2560x1440 at 24" would be vastly better than at 27-30".
Click to expand...

I am sorry, I didn't understand well your original statement. I like high resolutions. I am not sure if such a high res as you propose is really practical, but anyway, it is not on the market. Among screens on the market, 27 inch with 2560x1440 is what best fits to my needs. Moving a bit to look at different documents on a big screen is not so bad. Even might be better for health.

Cheers - Klaus

P.S.: Just had a look on my notes before buying: the 2560x1440 27inch panels have a resolution of 109 dpi, the highest of the screens I have found on the market. Next would be the Eizos 22inch models with 1920x1200, with 103 dpi, and the LG ips226v with 21,5 inch and 1920x1080, that has 102dpi. Lowest are the 27 inch 1920x1080 models, with 84dpi.
 
Last edited:
What are these screens like for watching videos on and playing console games, compared to a similarly priced 1080P TV?

I assume I'd need the one with the scaler and pixel mapping?
 
The C version looks like it might be just right for my uses. General web use and MMO's mainly driven by a single 6950. Don't think I'll need the scalers etc. for that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom